Vocal Voices

Mainland Europe becomes clearer and wider.

It does, it certainly does.

Well done to European banks for at least trying to protect the finances of their customers from the excesses of hawkish, neocon, Western politicians and their military arm, NATO.

Well now, this has given me seriously to think.

At least one of those banks mentioned, to my certain knowledge, borrowed more from it's home government than Barclays or Lloyds borrowed from the UK government. It has paid that money back like clockwork. In fact, if I remember correctly, it's ahead of it's schedule.

Now I never thought about that before, but in the light of this. Where exactly did they get the money? The host country has been in recession or on the brink of recession since 2008. Interest rates are rock bottom which means incomes on loans are low. Investors deposits are low because rates are low and, overall, the Eurozone is still, technically, in recession.

So just where did those billions of € in loans and interest come from to be paid back?

I wonder just how closely those banks looked at the companies they were lending to? I wonder just what the rates were for those loans and I wonder just what kind of money is funding the repayment and the interest?......

Having worked in Banking in Europe, over the last decade, for at least 5 years, I have an interesting birds eye view of the EU banking industry. For instance I knew that the German banks had gone under because they bought out American banks and funnelled German money into them. Where they could gamble that money for higher returns. Personal banking in Germany is regulated to the Nth degree to ensure that no Bank can fritter away it's investors money. Unfortunately those lessons learned in the great depression during the Weimar republic, did not extend to globalisation.

So in this ultra regulated industry. Designed to protect the employee and the investor before the business profits or the profits of the shareholder. Just where did they get this sudden wealth of money?

And are they really looking out for their investors in their dealings with Russia? Or are they looking after their corporate backsides?

Something to mull on for a year or two....

The EU, US and NATO welcomed the former Warsaw Pact countries at the end of the Cold War. They pushed for them to join NATO and all they got from Russia were mumbles of discontent.

They then toppled the freely elected President of the basket case that is the Ukraine and installed their puppet. When that was done the invitation to join NATO was on the table. Russia then got pissed off and manoeuvred to reclaim the Crimea, once a part of Russia, ceded to the Ukraine during the Soviet era. If the boot was on the other foot the West would have done the same.

Then came sanctions from the West. The excuse was that Russia had stolen Crimea. In response, Russia started arming the separatists in east Ukraine, as the West would have and has done in other places.

Then came the downing of MH17. Russia says that the downing was done by Ukraine separatists, the West claims that it was done by Russia, but offers no evidence. So the West imposes more sanctions and Russia retaliates with its own sanctions.

So I ask myself these things: Why is the West imposing sanctions on Russia, which will harm its own economies? If it has proof that Russia brought down MH17 why not show it to us, and let us see it? Why wasn't Russia invited to be part of the normal world at the fall of Communism? And are there members of the Elite who would like to continue a sort of 'soft' Cold War, one that could eventually lead to an all-out war?

All of what you say is very true WM, Contra Rebels springs to mind. Stingers to Iran springs to mind.

However it was not the point I was making. The point I was making is that the old Europe, within the EU, will always do what it feels is best for itself. Rather than what is best for the Union. Worse is that the political leadership of the Union will condone that action.

The UK is different. Acts differently and works differently.

Our press should be highlighting this. Because if we wish to remain in the EU, we're going to need to start operating the way everyone else does. Something 948 years of a single civil service has not conditioned us for.

Nothing could be clearer. Cameron's current negotiations with the other countires in the EU could not be clearer. If Britain needs to change the EU to stay in, then leave. If Britain doesn't want to leave, then change.

This is not difficult to work out. But the media are not going to say it. They're just going to bring down this government at the next election and then bitch about the Lab Lib coalition for as long as it lasts. That way they sell news!

Russia gets a lot of my sympathy from me on this

But.

They are playing an old soviet game. Cause trouble, hardball it, move to take advantage. Now I don't know exactly what happened with that russian missile launcher but let's get things straight. The rebels have no air power. Russia gave the rebels an extremely powerful air protection net. Russia (and the USSR before them), do not just turn up with a vehicle and give it to whomsoever they want to help. They send senior office technicians. In the case of rebels, the senior officers run the system.

As the Ukranian government had no need to be on alert for rebel planes, only Russian planes, they would not have had their finger on the trigger.

The west is certainly not blameless. But neither is Russia. Now both sides are playing games. The point is this. If we don't stand in line, the next time, when it's really needed, we won't either.

We both know what part of being a team is all about. Sadly the bulk of the EU does not. Unless it's in opposing the UK.