Thursday, April 12, 2012

Greek ‘bail-out’ cash being used to finance main political parties

After five months of technocratic government, Greek Prime Minister Lucas Papademos has gained the approval of President Karolos Papoulias to dissolve Parliament and hold elections on 6th May. You might have hoped this would restore democracy to the ancient land which invented the concept. But this is modern Greece we’re talking about, which is presently run as an outpost of the EU.

The UK taxpayer has contributed handsomely and generously to the bail-out of Greece (not to mention Portugal and Ireland) through the European financial stability mechanism and the International Monetary Fund. We are committed to providing around 4.5 per cent of the IMF fund and 13.5 per cent of the European financial stabilisation mechanism fund, which amounts to €billions. His Grace apologises for not putting a precise figure on it, but, frankly, it is sufficient to know (in a time of austerity) that it is £billions: the precise sum appears to be concealed behind a shroud of economic known and unknown unknowns. Essentially, for every €50bn of bail-out provided to Greece, the UK provides in excess of £3bn. Some media reports put the total Greek bail-out figure (to date) at €138.2bn, meaning the UK loan (which is really a gift, since it will never be repaid) is around £10bn, give or take.

Now, you might think this cash would have been gifted with stringent conditions: you know, like bank recapitalisation, state sector salaries or the servicing of debt. God knows that civil strife and suicides urgently need to be averted, so few would begrudge a few €million being diverted into programmes of job creation, social care or debt counselling.

But to learn that the European Commission has sanctioned a €29 million pay-out to Greece’s top political parties is utterly astonishing, not to say grossly offensive, not least because this is the EU (ie the UK taxpayer) bailing out the very political parties whose economic policies caused the crisis in the first place. Those who will receive the subsidy include the centre-left Pasok, the centre-right New Democracy, the far-right Laos, the far-left Syriza, and KKE factions. We learn from Pasok Interior Minister Tassos Yiannitsis that ‘the funds will be used for campaigning in upcoming elections in May and for unpaid wages and other debts, such as to the state social security fund, the IKA’.


So, while public sector wages are being slashed and jobs decimated, bail-out cash is being used for political campaigning and politicos' salaries. This, of course, gives considerable political advantage to the main established parties, and amounts to an EU-financed general election: it is tantamount to the euro-nationalisation of the Greek political parties. No longer will the little Greek man in the agora be able to decide which parties rise and which will fall: the voters will be offered officially EU-sanctioned parties who will appoint EU-sanctioned candidates financed by EU-donors, and then force-fed a diet of EU-inspired propaganda to ensure the passing of EU-mandated policies to ensure the perpetual propagation of EU objectives.

This is not democracy: it is not even a credible façade. The EU super-quango has become an omnipotent beast with supreme control over the economics and politics of the Euro-confederacy. Not content with governing what we may buy and sell, it now determines how and for whom we must vote. Europe has been here before, and we all know where it led. Surely we must learn the lessons of history.


Blogger Galant said...

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm actually no sure where it led. Really. Could someone clue me in?


12 April 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger bluedog said...

You outline a chilling prospect, Your Grace, and not beyond the bounds of possibility, either.

How long before political parties of other EU member states experience the same benevolent largesse? How long before a UK general election is ruled out of order by Brussels? If a minor, non-EU sponsored party such as UKIP or, perish the thought, the BNP, challenges the Lib/Lab/Con orthodoxy and has the most seats in the House, what then? A true coalition of Lib/Lab/Con to prevent UKIP/BNP governing? Another election on account of unspecified irregularities in the previous vote (we know Muslim voters are uniquely blessed with the ability to vote from beyond the grave)? Assassination of political leaders of non-EU compliant parties?

There seems little doubt that the EU will put up a completely ruthless fight to keep The Project on track.

With regard to Greece and PASOK, it is interesting to note that former PM George Papandreou remains President of Socialist International. Still very much one of the boys.

12 April 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Cranmer, you seem suprised, but this is what the EU does. Ireland today stands in the same relationship to the European Union as it did to the British Empire 100 years ago; the only difference is that today, the UK stands in that same relationship. Welcome to the colonies. Free at the individual level, perhaps, but the national life strangled.

BTW, regarding Britain "bailing out" Irish banks - you are aware, aren't you, that that "bail out" money never touched the sides of the pipeline before it landed back in UK banks? Call-Me-Dave was just using us to disguise a taxpayers handout to HBOS, RBS and the rest of them.

12 April 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 11.17, errata. Ireland was never a colony of the British Empire, it was a key constituent of the United Kingdom.

12 April 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Right. The way Greece is a "key constituent" of the EU.

12 April 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

Wrong. Ireland was a 'united' kingdom before Scotland.

12 April 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger Owl said...


I don't beleive that Ireland had much say in the matter.

12 April 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger IanCad said...

Archimedes screw, so to speak?

12 April 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace said,
'Surely we must learn the lessons of history.'
Not just over the EU but here also.

12 April 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Galant said...

Just in case it is thought I was being sarcastic, I wasn't. I'd really like an answer to my question, please.

12 April 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. The Inspector is not at all averse to public money funding political parties. A damn sight more honest than shadowy figures or organisations doing it instead, what ! The big problem there is when you can’t put a finger on the pay back. Who knows what nefarious influence these types have bought in the past.

Fragile thing democracy, doesn’t do too well outside of comparatively civilised regions of the world. It has a price, but a price worth paying, to be sure. The only thing wrong in this case is it’s not Greek taxpayers footing the bill, rather everyone else but. But that’s the EUs fault more than the Greeks. An unexpected EU dividend of course – don’t believe it was forseen. “Make an economic basket case of a country, and it’s yours in financial slavery for a generation at least.”

Corrigan is insightful as ever. The UK is now a mere satellite of something bigger. We haven’t been like that since Roman times. Doesn’t feel good at all, does it, watching your future decided by a foreign power. Would have Wellington and Nelson steaming if they were here today.

But the important thing is our spirit is still here and intact despite our treacherous politicians. There'll always be an England !!

12 April 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Galant. The point the Archbishop is making is that when you pay for your democracy with the tainted money of a foreign power, as the EU is, you tend to compromise yourself. In the 1930s, fascist and communist governments competed with themselves on who they could buy that way. During that decade, democracy was switched off in numerous European states..

12 April 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Owl @ 12.27, true. But neither did England have much say in becoming a possesion of the Duke of Normandy, and thus a vassal kingdom of the King of France. It's a historical fact that cannot be changed. Unlike Scotland, which retains its own legal system, England Ireland and Wales co-developed the Common Law over 700 years, which seems significant to this communicant.

12 April 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog, England was never a vassal of France. The Normans provided a King of England, and also a separate Duke for Normandy.

12 April 2012 at 23:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

We are witnessing the resurrection of totalitarian Rome in our own lifetimes.

13 April 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

"Europe has been here before, and we all know where it led. Surely we must learn the lessons of history."

The Pax Romana, Constantine and Christianity, the Dark Ages, then the Holy Roman Empire?

There are many lessons contained within each of these epochs - which ones are we to learn?

13 April 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 23.25, I beleve you are wrong and cite 'In 1066 the Duke of Normandy, William I, a vassal to the King of France and cousin once-removed of Edward the Confessor, invaded and conquered England in the Norman Conquest'.

The Dukedom of Normandy was a title bestowed by the King of France. As a French Duke, William the Conqueror was ex-officio a vassal of his sovereign. On conquering England, William as Duke of normandy remained a vassal of the French King, thus England became a vassal state of France.

It goes further, 'During 1142 and 1143, Geoffrey secured all of Normandy west and south of the Seine, and, on 14 January 1144, he crossed the Seine and entered Rouen. He assumed the title of Duke of Normandy in the summer of 1144. In 1144, he founded an Augustine priory at Chateau-l'Ermitage in Anjou. Geoffrey held the duchy until 1149, when he and Matilda conjointly ceded it to their son, Henry, which cession was formally ratified by King Louis VII of France the following year.'

The Henry referred to above is the important King Henry II. Now if Henry II was created Duke of Normandy in 1149, and if that title was ratified by the King of France, under feudal law, the title-holder was a vassal of the King of France.

If you care to fight your way through the attached link, you may see what I mean:

Because of the intertwined relationship between the Crowns of England and France, it was the custom for every English King or Queen to be proclaimed King or Queen of France in addition to their other titles, on coronation. Queen Victoria was the first monarch not to claim the throne of France. A practical decision, in the circumstances.

13 April 2012 at 12:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done that Bluedog, you’ve done your homework. It all depends on how you view the situation. The French king did indeed make Normandy a dukedom. Twas a sage move as it defined the Norman province. Prior to that, the borders were somewhat fluid. Technically, that made the Duke subordinate to the King. The truth of the matter was that the Kings of France loathed the Normans and had little to do with them. After all, they pinched a piece of France !

As for Queen Victoria ceasing to claim what no longer existed, it was King John who lost Normandy, and other territories in France. The claim is based partly on the curious notion that what has been lost in battle, is rightfully yours to claim again with or without force of arms, no matter how many centuries pass in the meantime…

13 April 2012 at 16:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector & Bluedog: you are both right to some degree: although Duke William was, technically, in abeyance to the French King, it was, tactically, a surrender on the part of the French king.

Which only goes to show the importance of 'reading the small print'!

It is interesting to note that a, had Edward the Confessor not been such a daft twat, or b, had Harold not usurped the throne, all might have panned-out far more agreably, for all concerned. Either William wouldn't have a look-in, or else William, unoppossed, would merely have been subsumed within a still largely Saxon heirarchy; with little or no 'French' involvement; and probably no 'suppression' whatsoever.

13 April 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Tsk! That's 'agreeably' of course...

13 April 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

I have bought several billion space bucks worth of Euro debt- why in 200 years it will be worth a fortune!

13 April 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oswin. It is topical with the Archbishop’s other current threads, to mention that Edward the Confessor was not just a deeply religious man, he was almost certainly gay. His refusal to lie with his Queen and produce an heir just goes to show how upsetting to the natural order homosexuality is. Nothing but problems. We need to go forth and leave them in the rear, so to speak, what !

13 April 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector: being 'gay' doesn't mean he had to be quite such a 'plonker' - history has been unduly kind to the man; he was a bloody disaster. He had twenty-odd years to sort out his little problems.

14 April 2012 at 00:41  
Blogger len said...

The EU is almost certainly the 'beast ' described in Revelation.Or at least part of the' beast World system'.

I suppose the Roman System under the Caesar`s is a good illustration of the absolute carnality of 'the beast system.Rome was built on the back of oppression and slave labour.Sexual licence was also permissible indeed positively encouraged.
This Roman system coupled with a 'Harlot Church'(sells the body for 'a price') is clearly described in 'Revelation' in the Bible.

This is all well under way.

14 April 2012 at 07:49  
Blogger bluedog said...

len @ 07.49, I'm sticking to the Mayan calendar this year.

14 April 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...


The reported celibacy of Edward is not the same as him being homosexual.

15 April 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Did the Holy Spirit reveal all this to little ole you?

15 April 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, through His Word yes.

Revelation is given by God through His Word (which is what illuminates one)

Jesus Christ is the Living Word,the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of Prophesy, the Revelation (in the Bible ) is given By the Lord Jesus Christ to John. Add these together.

22 April 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


You are interpreting Revelation according to your own particular prejudices. You are basing this on historical nonsense and lunatic fringe writers. Now this is hardly the work of the Holy Spirit.

25 April 2012 at 00:11  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older