The lady in question can be said to be Frau Doktor Angela Merkel, but could equally be said to be Germany herself. The entity treating the lady badly is Greece.
British Gazette readers will be sadly very familiar with the slow motion train crash that is the Euro.
However with all the talk of fiscal deficits and so forth some of the most relevant facts of the matter are bypassed and completely ignored.
Greece’s “cooking the books” upon its entry into the Euro is one such that in the opinion of the Editor of this organ deserves closer comment as it goes straight to the rotten heart of this never to be sufficiently damned abomination that is the European Union.
Greece’s behaviour is best examined by an analogy: Dear Reader, please imagine the following scenario:
– Tomorrow, you are sitting at your desk or doing whatever you are normally doing when the postman delivers the mail. You go and collect the mail and open it. You read with very great surprise that an old school friend with whom you lost contact has died. The letter is from a solicitor mentioning that you have been mentioned in the will and are asked to contact them.
– You do so and discover that you old school friend died after all his family members had died and as a result the vast bulk of the £1 million estate has been left to charity. However they have left you £100,000. The solicitor explains to you that the legacy is free of Inheritance Tax as this is the only part of the deceased’s estate that is not being left to charity and therefore no IHT is payable as the amount is well within the IHT threshold.
– Some weeks pass and eventually you receive a cheque for £100,000 drawn on the solicitor’s client account. You then begin to wonder what to do with the money. You do not like the idea of putting the money on the stock market. You look at the interest rates being paid by your bank and building society and regard the rates as pathetic.
– You then receive a telephone call from a friend, a Mr Testicle – who arrived five years ago from Athens. They are wishing to set up in business and need a loan of £100,000. They ask if you would be prepared to lend them the money on an interest only basis with the friend’s house put up as collateral.
– You want to help your friend so you meet them. They explain that they would be willing to borrow from you on a fixed rate interest only mortgage at the rate of 7% which your friend points out is much more than you can get from a bank or a building society.
-You agree to lend your friend the £100,000 on the terms they suggest – that their house is secured against the loan.
– The loan agreement is set up using your friend’s solicitor, Messrs. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband & Co. Whose website has the tag line, “Legal advisors you can trust.”
– Twelve months pass and you are hoping to receive the interest cheque of £7,000. You receive a letter through the post from Mr Clegg who advises you that his client is in financial difficulties and wishes to discuss a reduction of the £7,000 down to £2,000 and an additional delay of nine months.
– You are not happy! You approach another solicitor, Bennett & Co of Harlow who investigates the matter. Mr Bennett has some bad news for you.
Firstly, Messrs. Cameron, Clegg Miliband & Co are not solicitors but a limited liability partnership registered in Panama offering “legal services.” As such they are not regulated in the UK and compensation cannot be obtained for their misrepresentations.
Secondly, your friend lied about aspects of his personal circumstances:
– The valuation report of the property was a forgery! The house was not worth £300,000 but £150,000 as it is at the end of the runway at Heathrow airport!
– The charge secured on his house against your loan is a second charge. There is already a first charge on the property for the interest only mortgage of £150,000 to the bank.
Mr Bennett explains that your friend (or should that now be ex-friend?) in the twelve months running their business acquired significant unsecured debts using various credit cards and the debt servicing costs now exceed his total income.
Mr Bennett explains that your friend is to be made bankrupt, that the bank will repossess the house and sell it at a repossession auction. Since you have a second charge you will only receive any money if the house sells for more than £150,000. Mr Bennett advised you that there is as much chance of this happening as there is of you winning the Euromillions jackpot three times in a row! This is because £150,000 represents the open market value when sold through an estate agent. Mr Bennett advised you that the house can be expected to fetch no more than £105,000. The bank is not worried about this prospect as they will have mortgage insurance that will pay out an additional £45,000 to make good their loss. Mr Bennett regrets to inform you that you are going to be left with nothing. Mr Bennett then advises you that you have his very great sympathy and because of the situation Mr Bennett is waiving his fee of £300 as he does not wish to rub salt into your financial wound.
Now you know how it feels to be German!
Speaking the Truth unto the Nation
But what of the benefits that these Germans have had for a decade from the Euro? They’ve had their cake, eaten it, and now won’t even let anyone have the crumbs.
But everyone already knew that Greece was deeply in debt; mainly because it borrowed, like a lot of other chancers, from the IMF.
I remember the former President of Nigeria stating; “In 1986 we had a national debt of £5billion, which we borrowed from the IMF. In 2000 we had repaid £16billion but according to the IMF we still owed £28billion. If you were to ask me; What is the greatest evil in the world? I would reply; Compound Interest, as charged by the IMF.”
Britain owns 29% of the IMF, so why are we borrowing from it?
And why is the WTO also insisting that nations borrow from the IMF and also sell off their utility and public services, as Britain has done?
Nations are being bankrupted by design; the design of the UN one World Government. On 30th January it published a new report: “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing.”
A blueprint for sustainable development and low-carbon prosperity, it lists over fifty recommendations, to put sustainable development into practice and to mainstream it into economic policy as quickly as possible.
Once again it is seeking to control every aspect of our lives, using its phony CO2 emissions scam.
You will probably recall the outcome of the High Court case over the showing of AL Gore’s film in schools, and the nine major scientific errors that were identified.
However, Al Gore “inadvertently reversed the science” of the 12,000 year old ice cores, as the most significant fact appeared to be that CO2 levels follow 800 – 2000yrs behind identical fluctuations in
in global temperatures, a fact agreed by Government scientists and the makers of the film. It seems rather strange that no one has pointed out that if that is so, all the IPCC’s readings are meaningless, as our current CO2 levels are the by product of the global temperatures which prevailed between the years, 12 AD – 1200 AD. That is an inescapable and logical conclusion.
Only Scotland is going to have a referendum in the next few years – not England, Wales or NI. That may be the case, but this United Kingdom has cracks right the way through it. Wales might not have a referendum in the offing, but they do have their own independence movement that could come in to play. We all know about NI’s issues. However, the biggest concern for Labour and the Tories is England. The Unionists might think they can continue to hold back the nationalist tide in the Celtic fringe, but there have been rumblings coming out of England in recent years and that could be a game changer. The last thing any Unionists want (and especially the Tories) is for a widespread belief that England is ill served by the UK parliament and government. If England becomes so unsatisfied with the status quo that the big parties start to suffer an electoral hit, then the Union as it stands is over. If Cameron, or whoever else stands up in front of a UK audience and tells the Scots how good they’ve got it and why they shouldn’t vote for separation’, all that does is remind the English audience that we’re not one nation’, the Scots are different, and the Scots are being encouraged to stay within the UK where they benefit from England’s largess. The Unionist strategy in England must be to pretend that there is no threat to the continuation of the Union and hope that their Scottish arms can successfully beat of the SNP and the Yes campaign in a referendum.