The European Council has agreed on the fiscal framework of the permanent rescue mechanism in the Eurozone called the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

The ESM is to replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), a temporary bailout fund set up in May 2010 by the cabinets of countries in the Eurozone, whose fiscal assets reach €440 billion. ESM is expected to become operational in July 2013. The joint assets of the ESM will be €700 billion.

View full article here

Scam Artists?
Is this the mechanism by which independent nations are going to be stripped of their independence?
Is this how we play the EU into the hands of the UN Global Government madness?

Buffet on EU Monetary Union: collapse?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42248019

In the picture, is 'heir to Blair' signalling he's turning left?

It looks a bit like the Bois de Boulogne they are pattering along.A well known haunt for prostitution. Rather apt, if that's the case.

"The decision to join the Euro debt union (as the Financial Stability Mechanism effectively is) was taken as the last act of the outgoing Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling. The UK will remain a member until 2013 when the Financial Stability Mechanism, conceived as a temporary expedient, is replaced by a new permanent Eurozone debt fund which David Cameron and George Osborne have indicated the UK’s intention not to join."


So, does this mean we are joining it after all (by default)?

Mega thanks ... linked into the piece.

ERM MkII anyone?

We have, in effect, joined the debt union ...

The idea that the Tories were ever in any way opposed to the UK contributing to the EU bailout scheme, is exactly the same as their Euroscepticism in general. It's a deceptive fiction they find it convenient to maintain and amazingly, many of their followers still insist on believing, despite the evidence.

They found it very convenient to pretend that Darling had done the dirty on them in his last few days. if they'd wanted to reverse what he had done, they could have done; they didn't want to.

Yup ... when push comes to shove, there is no difference between them ... as we might have said once or twice.

"Is the heir to Blair signalling he is turning left", too late he is so lefty now the difference is indistinguishable. Welllll. perhaps Bliar was a little bit more right than Camoron, but only a bit.

Lenin & Trotsky were more right wing than Camoron!

Not even a case of push coming to shove. it's just a surface gloss, a blow over as they say in the car trade. Slightly different line of claptrap, different but overlapping bunches of pals to look after. Fundamental beliefs, the big state, the EU, CAGW all the same. The same enthusiasm for deceit as a normal and quite appropriate way of doing business. The claptrap is more exaggerated when they are out of office, but when they are elected they revert to type PDQ.

Who can doubt that if we'd had a Labour government we would have had the equivalent of Osborne's economy boosting Carbon Tax? What substantial differences would we have seen? I suppose we just might have not been involved in the Libya business.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't read Hugh Gaitskell's stunning 1962 speech to the Labour Party Conference:

"The Tories have been indulging in their usual double talk. When they go to Brussels they show the greatest enthusiasm for political union. When they speak in the House of Commons they are most anxious to aver that there is no commitment whatever to any political union."

This country was warned almost 50 years ago that the Conservatives were federasts. They still are, perhaps more so. If you vote Tory, you get more "Europe".