European citizenship

Following the extensive discussion around new European countries resulting from secession, legal or illegal, that are already members states now I found it necessary to seek legal references exist on this controversial topic.

Well, in fact I don't believe it is controversial, since the Lisbon EU Treaty, clearly states what's the definition of the concept of European Union citizenship.

Article 20 (ex Article 17 TEC) provides in paragraph 1 that:

"It creates a citizenship of the Union. Shall be a citizen of the Union every person holding the nationality of a Member State. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it."

So is being a citizen of a member country which European citizenship gives you and not the other. If you stop being a member state of the European citizenship is lost.

Style question

If we do a bit of memory and try to be minimally fair, remember that the last time got the PP in front of the Government of Spain, namely in 1996, the economic situation was radically different, this, far from buoyant was redirected through adjustment policies undertaken by the head of the Economy, Pedro Solbes.

The erosion of economic ajustment and the political (GAL affaire) for the last government Gonzalez, led the government relief. The PP was found with an economy still in recession but with the duties performed, so a tweak of the wheel, managed to capitalize on their own and others achievements.

The current situation can not be compared, obviously, the previous time the international economic situation which was supported and pushed the Spanish recovery, following competitive devaluations and improvement, the Spanish economy enjoyed the international climate to improve all indicators: growth, personal income, unemployment, etc. At the team responsible for then, Rato is assigned much of the success achieved but without offence, must be attributed a large share of that success to the international environment.

This time, the transfer of power has not been done in the same way, the crisis is not only national but rather international, Solbes, however much he tried, did not have a President of Government, at least at the beginning of problem, willing to sacrifice for the country, may not even really come to understand the proof of the problem.The PP has come, therefore, the government in an entirely different (though majority) since all the dirty work is done.

It is not worth the "laissez faire" to the ship back on track, we must roll up our sleeves. The current team in charge of economic affairs seems, however, have succumbed to the dilettante atmosphere of the Prime Minister, famous for his handling of "tempo": wait and see.

Be undertaken important structural reforms draft, have an absolute majority, years away for the next election. Citizens, no matter political color, if you explain things properly, understand them. All that is asked is that they act so that this agony is as short as possible.

What is not acceptable is to see the explanations after Guindos triumphalist European rebuke or see Montoro explain why rising VAT beacuse "there are much fraud." It is outrageous.

We are fed up that we always are compared with bullfighters and "old fashioned gentlemen", the Spanish are no longer so, only some of its politicians more dandruff.

Markets

At this point in the film there are still those who believe that financial markets are really markets?.

Today's session has been paradigmatic, initial increases of over 5% to close half a point in the negative zone, the premium risk down at the start to finish higher than it started.

Had not made ​​the ransom to appease the "markets"?. I fear that something had to fail.

After the big news of the rescue, all the analysts who appeared on television given by "discounting" the news. This is one of the wonders of the market, everything is discounted, no more than apply the soft efficiency hypothesis and that's it. Everything is in the market, past and present. But today we have breakfast with almost 6% rise, anything went wrong? I can say that the initial movement was due to a monumental closing shorts, especially in banks. After the massive closing, someone could to put up money to have entered the rise, but again do this late in the film are who you want to invest?.

Individual investors withdrew a long time to try something in exchange, are beaten and run any risk. Are the institutions? Mutual funds and insurance companies and money unwillingness to sign them should be an adventure like today. Who is left? The banks themselves.

I fear that the protagonists of the creepy downs in recent months to be financial institutions themselves and are playing the dangerous game to cover their losses resulting outcomes in others. The HFT and speculative portfolios of banks are the absolute protagonists of the whole problem of falling asset prices and loss of confidence in the system.

We solve give them more money, where it used? Will they give a respite to the productive economy or continue with the speculation?.

Junkie´s economy

Much has been talk of the causes of the crisis being the ease of lending by financial institutions one of the reasons adduced to explain more.

However true, so is that nobody forced to sign a mortgage. We have experienced a time when society in general has acted as a junkie and the financial system as a drug dealer. Going the distance, I think the picture is appropriate because the loss of purchasing power has been offset by increased access to credit which has allowed high rates of consumption. This consumption obviously has fallen when the pusher has stopped supplying the drug, in this case the easy money and cheap.

In the underworld of drugs, the addict ends badly or in a detoxification clinic to remove the dependency, the pusher ends, at least in the movies, bad or in jail.

Perhaps this is where the script away in real life, in our case the narco gets away with millions of euros in compensation and a new job waiting just around the corner.

Quid prodest Bankia?

One of the main reasons that have brought this debacle in financial markets, as well as Greek and French elections, has been the involvement of Bankia.

This has been facilitated by Deloitte's refusal to sign bills. Asserts a wealth gap due to the valuation of accounts Bankia in BFA.

The paradox is that the same auditing firm validated the same accounts for just six months and also a little earlier because of the bank's IPO.

Although it is true that the price has since fallen and Bankia traded well below book value, as other banking stocks, does not seem a sufficient reason for varying the auditor's opinion to the point of refusing to sign the audited accounts.

Is responsible for the auditor to have signed a few bills on time last year were virtually equal to those who have refused to sign? What motivated this change of opinion? Is there a conflict of interest, since it also was responsible for auditing the accounts of members of the merger saving banks? Nobody will say anything, not even the CNMV also validated the IPO? Does repeated Enron?, Do not forget that the current Deloitte emerges from the ashes of Arthur Andersen and the Ibex that Deloitte audits from the current portfolio of clients from the old defunct auditing firm and disappeared but auditors reappeared on the other hand.

Rato is now known that he wanted to change the auditors, can revenge?. Costs the country dearly.

Rosebud

Rosebud are the last words of Charles Foster Kane, Welles transcript created by narrating the life of William Randolph Hearst, american billionaire who came to have 28 headers of newspapers and that, among other things, used for political ends. A front page dictated the media and was responsible, for example, the end of the Spanish empire in 1898 to support and promote the war in Cuba and being, therefore, responsible for the loss of the last Spanish colonies overseas.

The need to sell newspapers is seen in current publications as Newsweek, featuring Obama as the first gay president of the U.S. to defend gay marriage. Obviously one thing to defend and another very different practice.

In our country we also have our dose of sensationalism, but is unknown for the time recipient of some news. So we have one of the most important national newspapers giving news to the first rank of a blog post by Paul Krugman. Krugman uses this blog for many things, obviously is a blog and not The Economist or other specialized published by a prestigious university. Lectures are colloquial and do not have, of course, the same depth of analysis research papers produced after months of study.

Well, they use a blog entry, even that of Krugman, who used to teach doctrine so as to mock his enemies (which aren´t few), to whip do not know who. The news that Krugman see that is possible in a few weeks out of Greece to the euro and a "corralito" in Spain and Italy is not only biased and irresponsible, but is practically constitute a crime against the country.

How far do you get in this spiral of the worse better?

More wood, this is war¡¡

It not seems that the storm will abate in the coming days, quite the opposite.

The various factors that have converged in this May are too important to fade down the road without being lost some more feathers.

It is these moments when you most envy the Americans: polls every four years, a monetary policy that conforms to what the economy needs, not an economy that is set by definition, clarity of ideas, leadership, etc..

In contrast here in Europe continue to insist on the same recipes check despite not working, too much ego at stake and too Calvinist morality, too many elections and too many interests and the rating guys of "Insist and insist in the same way."

The only alternative is a federal Europe, but there is currently no politician with sufficient size to lead the necessary step forward.

How long we wait to decide who should decide? That clean up and clean out, everything else is quite simply a waste of time and money. If he had already done a couple of years, the only difference is that the bad times and we had taken us.