Mario Draghi has been doing his best to reassure, verbally, that the Euro is in no danger of breaking up. That there is a firm political commitment to the Euro and steps are being taken to ensure that it will continue on a new basis of fiscal, banking and political integration. See Reuters Report here.
Famous last words? Is the Chairman of the ECB perhaps ‘protesting too much’? Or is it just the famous Many Rice Davies quip of “well, he would say that wouldn’t he?”* So the question is why does he need to make such desperate assertions at all, and what is he basing these assertions on?
Well, he says, we have already made progress on integrating the European banking sector. Could have fooled me. Spain is still being told in no uncertain terms by little Wolfie that her banks are her problem and that Spain will take on any bank bailout as her own sovereign debt. And her spreads have shot up in the light of that remark.
Then as to this wonderful vision of a united, integrated Europe, with a uniform fiscal policy, political integration and all that. Sounds good and what we need perhaps. Until you realise that nowhere is it ever mentioned, even in passing that this full integration and necessary surrender of sovereignty by the member states should be effected through a democratic process.
Oh no, no, no, no! Unfortunately Nigel Farage, the notorious UKIP Euro MP is quite right when he says the EU has an allergy to democracy and has been doing everything it can to put a stop to this ridiculous and dangerous notion. No! What the likes of Mario Draghi, Angela Merkel and the various Nonentities such as the so called President of Europe Rompuy, appointed, unaccountable assorted Commissioners have in mind is the following:
All European nation States give up their sovereignty to “Brussels” and thereby relinquish any voting rights they may have had to anything in the EU. Thereafter “Brussels” will decide on everything from fiscal policy, defence, vassal status and the like, over which the said former nation states will have no say at all.
And of course the euphemism of “Brussels” will soon turn into “Berlin”. (Well it already has, hasn’t it?)
So how in all his optimistic, bullish assertiveness that the Euro is here to stay, does the banker Draghi really expect all this to materialise? And even suppose that it does, how does he expect it to work? And even if he believes it will work, how long does he think this procedure will take and does he really believe there is that much time ahead? And if he does, why has he started making anguished noises about the Euro not breaking up? Perhaps he’s seen the writing on the wall?
And if any of these tiny nonentities, under the illusion that they are running the show, really believes in further European integration, why does not even one of them pay lip service to the obvious?
Real, sustainable European integration can only be achieved through democratic vote. There is a European Parliament. Why not hold special emergency elections to this body which will then be empowered with the integration of Europe on democratic terms?
Simple answer. Because, according to those that have hijacked Europe and all their well fed minions, Parliament, directly voted by the people of Europe cannot be trusted to get it right.
And getting it right means keep screwing the people hard so the banks and the Euro nomenclatura can continue living it up!
Now if that is not a recipe for total collapse I don’t know what is! So, signor Draghi, if you really are earnest about saving the Euro, next time you come up with pep talk statements like that, why not suggest that the European Parliament should be the body entrusted with saving the Euro?
Not likely to happen. For one, neither Draghi or anybody else will just be appointed by the Hijackers any more. They will have to go through Parliamentary hearings and procedures to be confirmed. And that ISN’T what any of these banksters and their ardent supporters wants, now is it?
*In the trial of the famous Profumo- Christine Keeler scandal at the Old Bailey, Mandy Rice Davies (a colleague of Christine Keeler’s) was asked why Lord such and such had denied any wrong doing or orgies etc. Her disarming answer was, “Well, he would say that wouldn’t he?”