Refugees or Illegal Imigrants

I just saw a TV broadcast where a Syrian 'immigrant' to the Greek island of Kos, just off the Turkish coast, complained that the facilities to receive them were inadequate. I could not believe my ears when the angry man went on declare that "If this is Europe, then I'm going back to Syria."

Greece may seem wealthier than the country he has just left behind, but by European terms Greece has great problems of its own and is not equipped to cope with the volume of people fleeing distressed countries. But in general Europe as a whole has not estimated the sheer numbers of people attempting entry. One thing is clear though is that the rules prohibit economic refugees, in other words those illegal immigrants simply seeking a more affluent existence. That said if the protester in question can even think about returning, he has a realistic option, then he is by definition an economic refugee, and so should be deported. But the arrogance of him is amazing, no understanding for the country he has just entered, and high expectations.

In another broadcast a man complains that he has crossed ten counties, enduring great hardships, only to be left to rot in a make-shift camp on the outskirts of Calais while being denied entry to the UK. Clearly the message has not gotten through to him that his destination regards him as an illegal immigrant, not a refugee, as the international treaties say that he is supposed to claim assylum in the first country he encounters. Thereafter he will be allocated to a country, and has no right to choose the country of his desire.

The Calais authorities like those in Kos do not have the finances nor facilities to cope with the volume. It is not the fault of the local authorities. The EU as a whole has not been prepared for this swarm over the last two years. But it should have been. There is no reason why Italy, Greece, Malta, nor the town of Calais should have to cope with this without a coordinated plan and resources from the EU.

What does the Greek Bailout Mean?

According to the BBC "Chancellor Merkel told (German) MPs the deal was hard for all sides, but it was the "last" attempt to resolve the crisis"

The deal presented means many things, and there is no easy answer. One thing is that there is an attempt to use EU funds to easy an Euro problem. Something that non-Euro countries are resisting. After all they did not sign up for the Euro particularly anticipating such problems, countries like the UK.

But mostly the solution is neither one thing nor the other. The 'deal' is a typical fudge EU committee decision, who feel they have to do something, yet are afraid to do what is necessary for political consequences within their home constituencies. As such Frau Merkel is wrong, this will not be the last attempt to solve the Greek problem. In three years time we will be back to square one, discussing yet again what to do about Greece.

Why? Simply because as the IMF says, the measures do not go far enough in economic terms. Greece needs debt write-off and directed capital injection into targeted infrastructure project that will boost the GDP. In order to secure the further loans (bailouts) necessary to survive, Greece needs to prove it is serious in reforming its economy and mentality, this is why the deal terms are so stringent (a historic factor brought about by previous Greek governments who took conditional loans, without implementing the conditions). But you do not need a Labrador dog to see that such measures are recessionary, leading to contracting revenues which would otherwise be needed to repay these new loans.

The former Greek Finance Minister, still in Parliament, Varufakis, voted against the new deal, calling it insane. While his Marxists views may cloud his vision, he is largely correct. Basically, piling more debt on an already debt insustainable economy while imposing recessionary policies can only lead to catastrophe. Therefore in three years we will still be discussing the Greek issue.

The situation comes about because of internal politics within some Euro countries. Greece should not receive more loans without proving it is going to reform and pay them back. Greece should not get its debt written off, because that is our tax payers money, and they can work and earn for themselves. Hard talk for a country whose mentality seems to be that it deserves a Rolex, while earning enough for a Timex.

So, the deal imposes tough recessionary austerity, while expecting repayments on an increased debt that was already un-repayable.

The alternative, was to let Greece go from the Euro. Let them arrange their own monetary and fiscal policies to their own liking. Unfortunately the Greeks did not have the stomach for the Drachma, and they said so quite vocally in a referendum.

This left European creditors with little choice but to offer the 'half-measure' terms that they did. They could not plausibly offer less, nor politically more. But these are doomed to fail. It should either have been the full package, with monitored, verifiable, reforms, and an investment package similar to the Marshal Plan - Or Greece should have been allowed to arrange its own economy.

Unfortunately many Greeks seem to be very emotional concerning the affinity between the Euro and the EU, a confusion that may prove costly in the long run.

Greek Referendum

Queues at Bank machines during Capital Controles

Today Greeks voted in a referendum, on whether to accept or reject further Government loans and a collection of economic and structural reforms. Overwhelmingly they voted NO to the reforms, commonly known as Austerity, but chose to stay within the euro currency.

What people were asked to vote on was a set of structural and fiscal reforms that had already expired at the same time as Greece defaulted on its IFM repayment. From the this view point the vote was pointless, something that semms to be lost the present leaders the PM, Szipras, and FM Varoufakis.

The Honourabke Mr Szipras has been calling the result a triumph for democracy, and resistence to anti-democratic measures from its creditor organisations, the IMF, ECB, and EU. Saying that Greek honour has been salvaged in this rejection of oppressive austerity measures.

In matters that concern all its citizens Demoracy extends accross Europe, in a case like this the arithmetic is simple, 80 millions Germans out-vote 11 million Greeks, which could be interpreted as Mr Sipras should sit down and mind his toungue. There are no challenges to the way a country arranges democracy within its borders, but where international affairs are concerned let the majority rule. Some might argue that honour is preserved when ones repays ones debts.

Not this this picture shows it, but Greeks turned out in 1000s to vote, 63% of them

Austerity measurs have been rejected which would have released funds it needs to repay other debts. Unfortunately, you cannot reject poverty, you have to work your way out of it. Those reforms should have put Greece back on a viable track. Rejecting them does not leave a lot of manouvering space. In 2012 €105 Billion of Greek debt was written off on the condition of implementing measurs that should have returned its public sector balances to normal levels. These funds are not just figures in a computer, but real money that tax payers have contributed to the emergency funds. German tax payers, and other countries, are not likely to accept another write-off without austerity measures guarenteeing that there will not be a third, or even later a fourth write-off. And there are those countries that have ungone austerity such as Portugal and Ireland, would coomplain if Greece were let off the hook.

To put this another way other, European leaders such as Mrs Merkel have to convince their electorate, and/or parliaments, that the taxes they pay from the wages that they work for are well spent in writing off more Greek debt.

Time has overtaken events, and the Greek economy has deteriorated further in the meatime The consequence of this is that the next set of austerity proposals from the Euro-group are likely to be tougher, demanding even more spening cuts, privatisations, and reductions the number of public sector workers.

What will Happen Next?

The ECB has no basis to reactivate flotation of the Greek Banks, as there is no change in the circumstances indicative of the insolvency of Greeks Banks (IMF default, no refinancing) - any deal is days, possibly weeks off. This means the Honorable Mr Varoufakis promise to reopen the Banks on Tuesday 7th cannot be met. But the economy is suffereing, and crisis point will be reached by Wednesday 8 July. To reactivate the economy, and peoples daily lives, the Drachma will have to re-introduced.

Part of the referendum was peoples desire to remain in the Euro, but once the Drachma hits the streets how can this be done. It is not clear if the Drachma can be used internally and the Euro still for International trade, or whether the Drachma would only be a temporary measure. What is certain is that the Drachma would devalue rapidly on International currency markets leading to huge internal inflation and consequent hardship.

One thing I will predict is that if this senario plays out the Szipras/Varoufakis duo would not accept blame for the predictable circumstances, but rather point the finger at the EU creditors. The duo are playing on EU humanitarial simpathy to avoid putting their economy in order, and continue expecting gifts from them at the same time.

How now does Greece intend to repay its debt obligations when it is refusing to rectify is efficiency and effectiveness deficiencies?

With a NO vote to austerity effectively being a vote not to repay the countries debts Mr Szipras will have to come away from the next round of negotiations with tougher more intrusive reforms to the Greek economy to ensure that it will be in a future position to repay those debts, but with extensions to its repayment plan, and possible interest write-offs. This package he will sell to his electorate as a victory....Err.

At the end of the day, a debt 180% of GDP cannot be sustained, but if Greece expects help from other peoples earnings then they will need display real conviction in working toward getting themselves out of a mess that they created. The Greek government is right in its protection of pensioners living standards, but although they were very vocal in protesting against suggested cuts to pensions they did not actively restructure the creditors conditions in consiliatory ways, instead preferring to leave this as a battle-cry.

There have been faults on both sides, but certainly the Szipras/Varoufakis insistance on Marxist economic strategy in a Capitalist world, together with an unfounded expectation of negotiating flexibility on the part of creditors, and an insistance on tapping every assistance resource possible, has exacibated the situation.

One creative way to massage the debt repayments would be to make all loans interest free as a humanitarian crisis measure, and back date that, so that previous interest repayments can be considered as reducing the principle amount, and thus the total GDP% of debt. I do not have access to the figures, so cannot assess whether this amount to a substantial figure, but a guess it might amount to 10% of GDP. Lengthening the repayment terms is also inevitable.

Addressing the debt side of the problem is a one-sided approach, what is needed is a good old fasioned German pincer movement! The other side of debt to GDP, is to raise the GDP, which, ploitically, has to be done without giving money to the country for use at its own discretion. What is needed is cash injections targeted directly at infrastructure or manufacturing projects similar to the post War Marshall Plan, we could even call it the 'Merkel Plan'. Over five or six years this might boost GDP sufficiently to reduce the debt ratio to the commonly accepted sustainable level of 120%.

QED

ESC - Eurovision Song Contest- 2015

Last night provided the World with a veritable festival of vocal delight.
The quality of vocal ability on display cannot be denied.

European wide Audience judging by electronic voting systems could not be based on vocal talent, there was not one bad singers among the group. Differentiation between the participants had to be based on other values. The overall mood and tone of entries was morose and depressing, the contribution from the UK and 'Australia' were notable upbeat exceptions. Australia did well, UK's effort lacked punch at critical points, and were it better produced could have merited better than a bottom five placing.
So what was the judging criteria on the night. Perhaps the current economic crisis affected the ambiance, for to my taste even the Swedish winner with a seemingly optimistic title of "We are heroes of our time" was delivered in a down-beat tone. Many contributions echoed Operatic themes, Italy did well. Considering the overall mood of the competition, one thing was remarkable for viewers witnessing the voting progression.
After the initial grapple in the early votes Russia suddenly took the lead, and were consistently consolidating that lead as the votes from various countries were disclosed. At one point it looked like a certain Russian victory. What Happened? Well into the completion those countries within the top 5 appeared guaranteed some points, but suddenly several countries awarded Russia zero points.

As a speculative point could it be that as voting progressed the juries of various countries were accessing the Internet to find out what could be learned about the various contestants. It really was a remarkable turn around in the voting practice up to that point. If there persists a prudish tendency among the voters the pictures surfacing from Russian Maxim magazine may not have infused the public so much.

Suggestive pictures may be on the limit for some people, perhaps the voting public are mostly of an older generation, but more revealing Maxim pictures could have tipped the balance against her.

Interesting was the German perspective on their 'zero' point accomplishment. Quote, "this was totally undeserved, the girls voice was good, she is good looking, and the song was catchy." Well, setting aside the German national conviction that they have to win at anything they take part in, finishing outside the top ten is a national catastrophe, finishing with no points is outside of comprehension. In all fairness the German singer was not bad, at least as good as average. What the Germans fail to understand is typified by the pre-show and post-show bands vitrified by the live standing public in Hamburg, those bands were, judged on the world stage, average and bland. The German compare asked a commentating pundit what went wrong, and he answered "the competition was too strong," and the camera quickly cut away from him.

V E Day - Victory in Europe - Shame on Germany

To the relief of whole Europe Germany unconditionally surrendered on 8 may 1945.

This is something that future generations should feel to their bones, and not simply dismiss as history. Only One Hundred years before the First World War had Europe rid itself of its previous would-be Dictator, Napoleon (incidentally for anyone who has ever visited a French Museum he is still, curiously, lauded as a national hero, rather than the demonic democratic anti-Christ the rest of sees him as). History is easy to dismiss without personal involvement. As a child of the 60s, WWII was just 15 years behind us, but we felt the austerity, we had nothing, and were happy with nothing.

As children, we knew no better, austerity was commonplace, everyone had it, and we knew why! As the greatest alliance we had just defeated humanity’s greatest enemy - Germany! We were still recovering from WWII. In school we learned a lot about WWI, from teachers who had experienced that pain, which had only ended roughly four decades earlier. What I am saying is that without personal involvement, WWI was as ancient history to us as the pyramids. In retrospect I feel sorry for those soles sacrificed during the WWI conflict because we do not in this modern world pay them the due respect for their supreme effort bringing us to the freedom we enjoy today. It may seem ridiculous to say, but without these soldier’s laying down their lives, WWII would not have been possible. Think about that! We owe our freedom to the conclusion of WWII, but in turn to WWI.

So, our personal involvement with WWII drifts away from us, as does the tax declaration of two years previous. We should regret that, because our grandparents or parents gave their lives for our right to defend that indifference.

Where does that leave us today in regard to WWII?. Perhaps we should think about how the Americans celebrated VE Day, which was widely perceived as not they’re was war.

But never the less, they were there with us to the end! And we could not have done it without them.

Seventy year after VE day, there are mass celebrations on the anniversary, in London, in Paris, in Poland, in Ukraine, huge in Washington and huge in Moscow.

There was rumoured to be something happening in Berlin, but no-one could find out what was happening when or where.

The man who made it all possible, for without his Will and determination, there would not have been a resistance to Germany to fight WWII, Winston Churchill, was complacent about the victory.

To Germanys greatest modern day shame, it commemorations of VE Day, were held in closed ceremony in Germanys Reichstag Parliament building with orchestral classical music.

Huge, Huge! Shame on Germany that the end of suffering for millions at the hands of Germans was not commemorated in public and on nationwide television, for the World to see that Germany is eternally sorry for its crimes against humanity.

Almost every journalistic reference these days panders to political correctness as Nazi Germany. Undoubtedly Hitler’s Germany was of that political bias, but to placate the events of that period to a Nazi minority is to negate the mass involvement. The words Nazi and German were synonymous. At that time Germany was Nazi, it was not against Nazis that we fought, but against Germans!

Man Bites Dog

This Morning I woke up feeling, with all deference to the animal, sick as a pig :-(

In my misery I crawled to the sofa and switched on the TV to veg and find out whats happening in the World. The first news article I see concerns an outbreak of Asian Dog Flu in Boston, USA.

Perhaps I should struggle into the street and bite a nearby dog!
But take care theres a film crew passing at the time!

At What count Genocide?

The President, and former Prime Minister, of Turkey Recep Erdogan has recalled the Turkish envoy to the Vatican following Pope Francis Easter Mass reference to the massacre of Armenians upon its one hundredth aniversary as genocide. Further, the Vaticans ambassador to Turkey has been called to Ankara to explain the statement. Turkeys response has been to accuse the Pope of inciting resentment and hatred with baseless allegations.

One definition of genocide is a deliberate and systematic mass murder of a definite group of people, whether based on cultural, ethnical, nationality, political, racial, religious, or any other categorisation. The definition does not place any figure on the number of those exterminated, but the figure concerned during the Armenian genocide is reckoned to be around 1.5 million. Certainly a figure that cannot be ignored.

Turkey has persistently denied a genocide occurred, citing that many Turks also died in the conflict at the beginning of World War One. At that time Turkey was ruled by the fading Ottoman Muslim regime. However, since 23 countries including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Uruguay, and a variety of international orgaisations such as the European Parliament, have formally recognised the genocide and the Ottomans have little to do with present day Turkey why does the Turkish Government so vehemently deny the issue?

Firstly, the Turks estimate the deaths at a much lower figure, although historians state that the Ottomans destroyed much condemning evidence at the time. Mostly reasons for the denial are related to Erdogans attempts to portray Turkey as a majestic regal power by identifying with the Ottoman Empire. Thus criticism of the late Ottomans is perceived as criticism of the present regime.

The major phase of the genocide started in late April 1915 with the first part being the round up on Turkish soil and massacre of able bodied Armenian males, and the second part being enforced death marches through the Syrian desert of the remaining women, children, elderly, and infirm while deprived of food and water. Taken together with the Pontic Greek genocide the events appear to be systematic, using the advent of World War One as a pretext. Further corroborating this is that the 1915 massacre was just the culmination of a protracted campaign of atrocities, beginning with documented Christian persecution dating back to the 1830s, and the massacres of 200,000 in 1896, and 22,000 in 1909.

Present day Armenia lies to the Eastern border with Turkey on the strip of land separating the Black and Caspian seas. Together with the former Pontus region of the south eastern Black Sea coast it forms a belt of land along northern Turkey. The Pontus were a Greek speaking Christian Orthodox people, inhabiting the region since biblical times, who also suffered at the hands of the Ottomans. A reasonable estimate of the number of Pontus suffering similar fate to the Armenians is estimated to be around 700,000.

The autrocities did not end in 1915. There were a further 130,000 Armenians killed between 1915 and 1918. From the end of 1937 into 1938 roughly 65,000 Kurds were massacred in four waves in a central region of eastern Turkey known as the Dersim campaign, which is also widly debated as genocide. There is also the Assyrian genocide in south eastern Turkey resulting 275,000 deaths. All consistent with the policy of 'Turkification' - an ethnic cleansing policy extolled by Turkish statesman Ziya Goekalp from 1908. A Turkish court, in March 2011, ruled that the actions of the Turkish government could not be considered genocide because they were not directed systematically against an ethnic group.

To date the UK remains one of those countries not officially recognising the Armenian genocide. In 2009 Geoffrey Robertson QC disclosed Foreign Office documents showing how the British Parliament had routinely been misinformed and misled by Ministers who had recited previous reports without questioning their validity. A 1999 Foreign Office briefing for Ministers stated that recognition of the Armenian Genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK, and that "The current line is the only feasible option" owing to "the importance of our relations (political, strategic and commercial) with Turkey". So again politics outweighs truth.