New Era Dawns for EU

[798686]

SO because they had no problem with it, that makes it ok to annex an entire country? The whole world didnt protest against the annexation of Czhekoslovakia (spelling?) either did they? Chamberlain called it "peace in our time."

I'm with you on this. The world certainly did have a problem with Hitler annexing Austria, and marching into the Sudetenland and occupying Czechoslovakia - but they thought it would be even worse and too inflammatory to act, so they delayed it, until, when Poland was invaded, it was obvious it had to be stopped.

Plenty of Austrians weren't happy about it - expecially Jewish ones (obviously).

 

[Jason]

I'm not sure whether I've understood recent posts on relative size of Germany/Malta, Austria and the Anshluss, Czechoslovakia and the Munich Agreement and the like. But I think the posts make the point that Europe has a complex history. Within the USA there are enormous forces for cohesion because of a shared history. Within Europe there is a tension between the advantages of union and the culture of national independence. It may make economic and political sense to go for union but given the realities of European history it isn't making people happy.

Right now Greece is richer through being in the EU. It is possible that the EU will impose the draconian budget that Greece needs thereby maximising Greek national prosperity. But it is not going to maximise national happiness. I think Greece would be far happier with its unique national approach to Greek issues which creates social cohesion (and therefore happiness) rather than the ECB medecine which is about to cause so much misery.

We can measure economic performance but we seem very bad at measuring happiness. The European project seems based on concepts of prosperity, not happiness. The two are not always the same.

 

[cock23]

But I think the posts make the point that Europe has a complex history. Within the USA there are enormous forces for cohesion because of a shared history. Within Europe there is a tension between the advantages of union and the culture of national independence. It may make economic and political sense to go for union but given the realities of European history it isn't making people happy.

This is what I've been trying to say for SOOOOOO long in this thread, especially to the people who were banging on about how a USA can be a union and therefore so can the EU. The fact of the matter is, European countries are too diverse and have too many external conflicts with each other in their respective histories and on that basis a true superstate union like the USA is doomed to fail.

 

[TomCat84]

I'm not sure whether I've understood recent posts on relative size of Germany/Malta, Austria and the Anshluss, Czechoslovakia and the Munich Agreement and the like. .

I was bringing up a potential North American Union, and someone brought up the point about how Canada is x times as small as the United States, so I brought up a counter example. But apparently it's WAAAY different in Europe.

 

[Jason]

But apparently it's WAAAY different in Europe.

We're all a bit funny this side of the pond. And some of us feel the UK is semi-detached from Europe anyway, sort of mid-Atlantic. The English Channel is every bit as wide as the Atlantic - or the Atlantic as narrow as the Channel. :biggrin1: Actually I think Cock23 has hit the nail on the head: "European countries are too diverse and have too many external conflicts with each other in their respective histories ... a true superstate union like the USA is doomed to fail." It's not that we want it to fail, just that it inevitably will fail (and hurt us all in the process). Right now it is Greece getting hurt.
Meanwhile in Europe we're a bit like this::swordfight:

 

[Drifterwood]

I'm not sure whether I've understood recent posts on relative size of Germany/Malta, Austria and the Anshluss, Czechoslovakia and the Munich Agreement and the like.

It's pretty clear if you read it.

We can measure economic performance but we seem very bad at measuring happiness. The European project seems based on concepts of prosperity, not happiness. The two are not always the same.

Maybe you should take a look at all the quality of life surveys, including that of the Economist. You'll find European countries at the top. The UK is way down the lists.

 

[798686]

We're all a bit funny this side of the pond. And some of us feel the UK is semi-detached from Europe anyway, sort of mid-Atlantic. The English Channel is every bit as wide as the Atlantic - or the Atlantic as narrow as the Channel. :biggrin1: Actually I think Cock23 has hit the nail on the head: "European countries are too diverse and have too many external conflicts with each other in their respective histories ... a true superstate union like the USA is doomed to fail." It's not that we want it to fail, just that it inevitably will fail (and hurt us all in the process). Right now it is Greece getting hurt.
Meanwhile in Europe we're a bit like this::swordfight:

Lady Gaga's new song could well describe Britain's relationship with the EU. 'Bad Romance'...

 

[Jason]

Maybe you should take a look at all the quality of life surveys, including that of the Economist. You'll find European countries at the top. The UK is way down the lists.

There is a real problem with all the "happiness" ratings in that they are subjective. But taken in the round I guess they do show a picture of sorts. The one I quite like (because it is illustrated with a nice map) is the "Satisfaction with Life Index" on Wikipedia at Satisfaction with Life Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree that the UK is well down on most of the lists. Within the EU Greece, Portugal, Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic States all tend to be well down. The Nordic countries generally do very well, and France, Germany, BeNeLux tend to have good results. I don't think it can be said that being a member or not a member of the EU brings happiness in itself. But I do think that for each European country there is a right relationship with the EU and that getting this relationship right or wrong is a potential cause of national happiness or unhappiness. For Belgium (for example) the right relationship to the EU is to be a full and enthusiastic member. I imagine most Belgians have a feelgood factor with a Belgian as president. This makes Belgians happy. For the UK the relationship is completely different. Had the UK contributed the first president of the EU we would have seen it as a cause of national shame and been thoroughly miserable about it.

 

[dandelion]

This is what I've been trying to say for SOOOOOO long in this thread, especially to the people who were banging on about how a USA can be a union and therefore so can the EU. The fact of the matter is, European countries are too diverse and have too many external conflicts with each other in their respective histories and on that basis a true superstate union like the USA is doomed to fail.

What fact is that? didnt the US go to war with itself over the question of slavery? If you went into a crowded room in different states and shouted 'get out nigger', I suspect violent things would still happen, which way depending where you were. That aside, the US has never really been challenged because its whole history has been internal expansion into virgin territory. The whole of human history has been about learning to live with people who used to be your enemy when resources get short. Since we aren't extinct I see no reason why it won't work now, when frankly we have more in common within the Eu than different.

I know the UK economic news is far from good. The difference we have in the UK is that our currency can devalue and we can print money - both safety valves. We can run a higher budgetary defecit that the Eurozone and get away with it. Whatever anyone thinks of our budget yesterday neither the government or the opposition feel that Britain is facing a loss of sovereignty over our fiscal woes.

Or put it another way, the government can follow policies which devalue private savings and thereby cut its debt. The effect is the same in the long term, that everyone is poorer. Instead of taxing them and cutting wages, the government seeks to pay in currency which has less value though the same nominal amount. Maybe it works, but who is fooling who? People catch on and those rioters are back on the streets....

I don't think any other EU-members will accept any more opt-outs for the UK. There's noone like Thatcher who can scare the others into giving refunds anymore.

I don't think the Conservatives won't ever mention that referendum again, after they're elected. Even they aren't Eurosceptic enough, they know well enough that leaving the EU means giving up the UK's position of a powerful member state and still having to swallow any European regulation the EU passes. Not accepting EU regulations on products means not trading those products with the EU.

As regard opt outs, it works the other way. We have a veto on treaty changes. If they want to do something without us, they need our permission. This impasse has been resolved historically by agreeing that most will proceed with something and the rest will stay out. This hasnt changed. The real question is whether the politicians concerned really want to stay out, or possibly whether they can agree some gain which they value more than any perceived loss from entering something new. And as regard regulations about products, frankly for the most part they are trivial: there have to be regulations and they might as well be those ones.

 

[dandelion]

Conservative views on Europe are incredibly complex. I think you are absolutely right Mattflanders that they are not simply all out Eurosceptics. I think it is possible to unpick several strands of thought:

1) There certainly is an extreme Eurosceptic view. This has significant popular support in the UK so the view matters at elections. Additionally the people who belong to the Conservative Associations that select (and deselect) Conservative candidates for MP tend to be of this view. Many in the Conservative party and in the country see leaving the EU as a moral imperative that goes beyond any possible considerations of economics. The Lisbon Treaty (and therefore the EU) is a betrayal of Britain, is abhorrent, is anti-democratic - you get the flavour.

2) There is a Conservative view which is very positive towards the European ideal recognising an economic argument and seeing a united Europe as a way of preventing both war in Europe (the original treaty of Rome) and the way of righting the divisions of the iron curtain. In the end it is the Conservatives who took the UK into the EEC.





These two views have traditionally divided the Conservative party. However there is now a third Conservative view which ultimately unites Conservative thought and presents a stunning new vision for Europe. This is set out on the Conservative's website The Conservative Party It includes plenty of pro-Europe language from (1) - and at the start of the poicy statement. But also it calls UK ratification of Lisbon a "betrayal of democracy", sees Lisbon as a "problem" and speaks of the "steady and unaccountable intrusion of the EU into almost every aspect of our lives". It includes a promise that Britain will never be a part of a federal Europe. And it sets out three areas where the Conservatives require modifications to the Lisbon Treaty:

• A full opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR).
• Greater protection against EU encroachment into the UK's Criminal Justice System.
• Restoration of national control over social and employment legislation.

Cameron wants every nation in Europe to sign through modifications to Lisbon. He knows this is going to be a battle. And he knows that at every stage in the battle Conservative popularity in the UK will go higher. But the new Conservative approach to Europe goes further than just the UK demanding these modifications. The language will be that these modifications should be available to all member states - and many member states will want them. Certainly the people of many (most?) member states will want them.

The Conservatives unite views (1) and (2) by putting forward a new vision of Europe as a confederation of sovereign states within a community of nations. This is not a Euro-Sceptic view. It is a positive vision for Europe but one which is completely at odds with the Lisbon Treaty. What the Conservatives are offering is a clash of ideologies, a clash of world views. And the Conservatives will present themselves as the most pro-European vision, articulating a vision for Europe that reflects the views of the peoples of Europe. By contrast the views of Sarkozy and Merkel will be presented as tired and failing federalist delusions that need to be dismantled before they do more damage.

Assuming a Cameron-led Britain after the next election EU politics is going to get lively.

Nice post (seriously, but...). You dont write their manifesto do you? An alternative interpretation might be that some conservatives are on the 'national front' wing, which believes foreigners should be exterminated, and others are on the 'free market' wing, which believes private capital should not be taxed and no rules should be introduced inhibiting the acquisition of private wealth by any means. An exaggeration? yes. But I think my description of the matter has an equal truth to your own civilised coalescing of views. I find it hard to believe there is anyone left in the world who does not understand that there have to be taxes and wealth redistribution policies. Not for the sake of being nice, but becasue if you don't do this, eventually the peasants riot and kill you. This is what the EU is all about. A gentlemans club for regulating international free trade.

If Cameron can stake a place for himself as the champion of the people against EU beaurocracy and I mean European people not simply English ones, well then good luck to him. But he will have considerable difficulty if he wants to dismantle measures which benefit people. For example, he wants to prevent people in the UK having 'human rights'? How does the EU encroach on UK criminal justice, for example by the US being allowed to extradite any UK citizen without evidence or query when we cannot do the same to the US, whereas all EU arrangements are reciprocal? national control of social legislation...abolition of minimum wage, abolition of working hour limits (which dont really apply anyway)...?? What we need currently is rather the reverse. What we need are limits on high earners creaming off disproportionate sums for precious little input. He could start with an abolition of UK parliamentary expenses. The conservatives won't vote for that one? oh dear.

I remain convinced that it is perfectly possible for Cameron or anyone to stand up in defence of the citizen against the monolith, but still be unable to find anything seriously wrong with the EU. That is the point, all this argument is interpretation of what the EU might become rather than what it is. The nationalists have generally all signed up to new treaties because they known, whatever they say, that the treaties are in their national interest. There is a maxim that political parties only ever dare bring in novel measure which cut against the trend of their established party line. The reason being they are unafraid of losing their own diehard supporters, but keen to attract some from the opposition. So maybe Cameron will have us join the Euro, because it makes financial sense. It would be one up on Blair.

 

[cock23]

What fact is that? didnt the US go to war with itself over the question of slavery?

*Yawn* you use this example over and over and OVER again...yet you don't seem to realise that this ONE conflict is a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of conflicts that European countries have had with each other over the centuries.

If you went into a crowded room in different states and shouted 'get out nigger', I suspect violent things would still happen, which way depending where you were.

That's an internal, not an external, issue. And inc ase you havn't noticed, the vast majority of black people in the USA are happy to be called "Americans".

That aside, the US has never really been challenged because its whole history has been internal expansion into virgin territory. The whole of human history has been about learning to live with people who used to be your enemy when resources get short. Since we aren't extinct I see no reason why it won't work now, when frankly we have more in common within the Eu than different.

The USA didn't internally expand onto virgin territory....it externally expanded onto the territory of the native American Indians and killed off most of them in the process.

"The whole of human history has been about learning to live with people who used to be your enemy when resources get short."

Feel free to point out some good examples.

And by the way, what exactly do we have "in common with the EU"?

 

[Jason]

In terms of an election issue the EU is less of a problem for the Conservatives than it once was in that they do seem reasonably united in the message they are putting forward. That said I think Cameron would probably prefer to ignore it. However the UKIP issue has the potential to force the Conservatives' hand. If it really does look as if a significant chunk of Conservative vote is breaking to UKIP they will have to make much clearer Euro-Sceptic statements. I don't think they will alienate potential voters by doing this with the proviso that it would have to be done very close to the election date. The second Irish Lisbon vote showed that the Eurocracy is capable of campaigning for their view on a European issue, and Cameron would not want to give the Eurocrats time to meddle in UK politics. My thought is we will have all quiet on the EU front until into the election campaign then some very Euro-sceptic noises (possibly from someone other than Cameron).

You've made the point Dandelion that politicians do different things when they are in power. Undoubtedly true. They're politicians. What you or I think Cameron will actually do assuming he is PM comes down in the end to how we read his character. For example I think he is fully supportive of the NHS (his son had extensive benefit from the NHS) and is well aware of the needs of wealth redistribution for a cohesive society. I really do think he is a red-green-blue-new Conservative. I also think he is a very clever politician - and that's not actually meant as an insult as I think we need clever politicians in political jobs. As a clever politician he doesn't take decisions by accident. The decision to position the Conservative MEPs outside the Grand Coalition is significant and we can take this as indicating his policies. The move makes no sense whatsoever if he intends to be a good boy in the EU. His first comment after the Lisbon ratification was to call it a "betrayal".

Cameron went to Eton (as Gordon Brown has just reminded us). Eton is a boarding school which in Cameron's day used corporal punishment and a fag system which was sanctioned bullying. It creates people who can wear a mask and not show emotion, skills necessary for survival. I don't think Cameron will set out in advance what he will do about the EU. I think he will just do it. And I think he will regard the EU's soft-socialist Grand Coaliton with the same loathing that he has for the Labour Party. He has a positive vision for Europe which sees Europe as a community of sovereign states all broadly right of centre and with a right of centre EU parliament. The challenge is to get there. I understand Dandelion that you think he will knuckle under. I don't. Options for Cameron include:

* CAP. There has hardly been a whisper about this for ages, yet the reality is that UK money funds this ghastly policy. It breaches the spirit of the proposed Copenhagen agreement in that the over-production of food creates carbon emissions. A crusade against CAP may be on the cards and would get much support from other EU CAP contributors. It could also be phrased in moral terms. And Cameron doesn't have to say the boo words (someone else would) - CAP is abhorrent, a genocide, a holocaust.

* Legal challenge to the application of the Lisbon Treaty. Lisbon requires considerable interpretation and there is infinite opportunity to query it through the European courts. Indeed it would be possible to raise a legal query on any Lisbon-related issue that the UK doesn't like (or just on all of them). It would be possible to create a situation where Britain in effect refuses to accept much of Lisbon without actually withdrawing from the EU. This would undermine the whole functioning of the EU.

* Budget. I don't think the EU has taken on board what is going to hit them. I think the UK will demand a massive reduction/rebate. And in the end the UK won't pay up and what is the EU going to do about it?

* Diplomacy. The Conservatives will be working with parties throughout the EU to create a proper centre-right block in the EU parliament.

 

[dandelion]

My thought is we will have all quiet on the EU front until into the election campaign then some very Euro-sceptic noises (possibly from someone other than Cameron).

not least because coming down firmly for or against the EU has the potential to create an enormous split inthe conservative party. Which is why he is walking the tightrope of portraying himself as grand reformer. Be committed to the idea to please the pros and determined for change to please the antis.

For example I think he is fully supportive of the NHS (his son had extensive benefit from the NHS) and is well aware of the needs of wealth redistribution for a cohesive society.

This is straying from the EU, but the conservatives are in a rather difficult position that they are now attacking Brown for modest cuts to the NHS at a time when deep spending cutbacks will be necessary. Rather a contrast to how they behaved when actually in power...it was Brown and labour who poured money into the NHS, yet now they feel a halt is in order because of lean times, suddenly the conservatives want to spend.

The decision to position the Conservative MEPs outside the Grand Coalition is significant and we can take this as indicating his policies. The move makes no sense whatsoever if he intends to be a good boy in the EU. His first comment after the Lisbon ratification was to call it a "betrayal".

An interesting suggestion, and one which makes some sense of his odd choice of allies.

I think he will regard the EU's soft-socialist Grand Coaliton with the same loathing that he has for the Labour Party.

Loathe the labour party??? couldnt get a fig leaf between them, more like.

He has a positive vision for Europe which sees Europe as a community of sovereign states all broadly right of centre and with a right of centre EU parliament.

i dont worry about the community of sovereign states, which is exactly what it is, but I think it is a bit presumptuous to try to change the EU treaties to specify their governments must be right wing. This rather exceeds EU powers at the moment.

I understand Dandelion that you think he will knuckle under.

depends what you mean by that. Do I think he will act in what he perceives to be british best interest, moderated by personal and party self interest? yes. This may mean that in 5 years he will have agreed another treaty.

* CAP. There has hardly been a whisper about this for ages, yet the reality is that UK money funds this ghastly policy. It breaches the spirit of the proposed Copenhagen agreement in that the over-production of food creates carbon emissions.

The Copenhagen agreement is a joke. Either there is no CO2 global warming and it is a waste of time, or there really is and it is far too little far too late. The real issue is there are twice as many people in the world than it can support, and the number is going up not down. Is anyone doing anythng about this? er,.... Now, the CAP. what are you saying is wrong with it? Before joining the EU we had our own farm subsidy system, and if we left we still would. Anyone who thinks we will switch off the power stations because they are emitting CO2 and sit in the dark, or stop using expensive fuel to grow food in a steadily increasing world food shortage situation hasn't considered the issue well enough.Stop worrying about EU beaurocrats and start worrying about what may really mess up your retirement plans.

A crusade against CAP may be on the cards and would get much support from other EU CAP contributors.

France pays for CAP. We don't. They like it, they pay for it.

I think the UK will demand a massive reduction/rebate. And in the end the UK won't pay up and what is the EU going to do about it?

we dont pay that much, not least because of our existing handy rebate. What we do pay is proportionate to our own stated desire to expand the EU by adding new members, and covering the cost of doing this. Maybe you think we were wrong to do this, but we did. If we dont like the rules, we can always leave, and if we really were being so stroppy the others would no doubt be pleased to see us go. That is just another way of deciding to leave, but being bloody minded about it. make up our minds.

 

[Jason]

Interesting stuff Dandelion.

I don't think we are really disagreeing, which might be surprising as I think we have very different political views.

I would be hard pushed to find concrete evidence to back up this point as it is an interpretation of what makes Conservatives tick rather than something more concrete. However here goes! I think Cameron and the Conservatives could work quite happily with a broad centre-right EU parliament even in a federal Europe. I think they are unable to work with a socialist EU parliament, or with a grouping within the EU parliament that includes socialists. The whole mindset of the individuals leading the Conservative party, of the upper and upper-middle classes from which they come, and of the Conservative Associations to which they are answerable, is that socialism is deeply wrong - morally wrong, even spiritually wrong. The likes of Blair, Brown, Sarkozy and Merkel are sinners. Recent revelations about Blair's manner of taking Britain to war against Iraq in many ways confirm the deep-seated Conservative view of the moral wrongness of the ship socialism and all who lead her. In saying that Labour "betrayed" Britain in not holding the promised Lisbon referendum Cameron is not speaking carelessly but using a precise term for what he - and most Conservatives - see as an act of high treason, or in religious terms a Fall from Grace. Our government sinned. Until recently Conservatives (say activists in Conservative associations) were prepared to believe almost anything bad of Blair. Now post Lisbon and post Blair's revelations on his Iraq lies Conservatives are prepared to believe anything bad of Blair - and anything bad of any sinning socialists.

 

[Jason]

GREECE

Just had a look at Papandreou's statement today. The highlights are:
* 10% reduction in social security spending.
* public sector pay and hiring freeze
* cuts in defence expenditure

EU officials (of the nameless variety) have stated that the EU will not bail out Greece. Adedy (the big public sector union in Greece) has responded to Papendreou's speech by declaring an immediate escalation in industrial action. The markets in Greece were closed when the speech was made - it will be interesting to see how they react when they open. A thought is that the measures announced cannot possibly work. Ireland cut public sector salaries by 6%, and that's a country in a much less difficult position than Greece. To stand a chance of balancing the books Greece needed a bigger cut in social security spending and cuts in public sector pay. And most of all Greece needs support of her own people including the unions. Maybe the idea is for people to understand the situation and a second round of cuts to be announced very early in the New Year - but it seems a long shot.

Two ideas are now in the public domain. One is that in meeting EU targets Greece faces a virtual loss of the social elements of its society - benefits, pensions, health, education. The other is that Greece is going to leave the Euro. I've made my views clear in previous posts - in a nutshell leaving the Euro is the least bad option for Greece.

 

[TomCat84]

That aside, the US has never really been challenged because its whole history has been internal expansion into virgin territory.

Well, yeah....besides the split into effectively 2 different countries, it hasnt ever been challenged.

 

[798686]

GREECE

Just had a look at Papandreou's statement today. The highlights are:
* 10% reduction in social security spending.
* public sector pay and hiring freeze
* cuts in defence expenditure

EU officials (of the nameless variety) have stated that the EU will not bail out Greece. Adedy (the big public sector union in Greece) has responded to Papendreou's speech by declaring an immediate escalation in industrial action. The markets in Greece were closed when the speech was made - it will be interesting to see how they react when they open. A thought is that the measures announced cannot possibly work. Ireland cut public sector salaries by 6%, and that's a country in a much less difficult position than Greece. To stand a chance of balancing the books Greece needed a bigger cut in social security spending and cuts in public sector pay. And most of all Greece needs support of her own people including the unions. Maybe the idea is for people to understand the situation and a second round of cuts to be announced very early in the New Year - but it seems a long shot.

Two ideas are now in the public domain. One is that in meeting EU targets Greece faces a virtual loss of the social elements of its society - benefits, pensions, health, education. The other is that Greece is going to leave the Euro. I've made my views clear in previous posts - in a nutshell leaving the Euro is the least bad option for Greece.

Interesting, have to keep an eye on this one.

 

[Drifterwood]

Leaving the Euro is't an option for Greece.

To suggest otherwise demonstrates a polarity of dogma.

 

[mattflanders]

I agree, I don't think Greece can leave the Euro. Technically it can, but their new currency would still have to stay within the limits set by the ECB.
Unless they are forced to quit the ERM like the UK had to in the 1990s because the currency is in freefall.

The stability of the Euro will probably save Greece.

 

[Jason]

A likely scenario for Greece was set out by Desmond Lachman (American Enterprise Institute) a few days ago:

Yet leaving the Euro is not an option for Greece since that would inevitably lead to debt default for the Greek government with dire consequences for the Greek economy. Greece is lucky in that the ECB [European Central Bank] will not want that scenario to occur since it would have a domino effect throughout Europe with Ireland , Spain and Portugal next in line. So the most probable scenario is that the ECB will try to get Greece to agree to an adjustment program and then hold its nose while it provides Greece with funding.

Since this prognosis there have been two changes. One is that the ECB has said that they will not bail out Greece. The other is that the adjustment programme announced is way too timid to work and anyway the level of opposition in Greece is such that it almost certainly won't get implemented. The Wall Street Journal today speaks of "Greece's failure to come up with a credible debt recovery plan".

Published today is a comment from Ruth Lea (LSE) ""Countries like Greece now face a choice. Do you let your economy go to pieces or do you accept political humiliation, get out of the euro and let your economy grow?" Standard Bank analyst Steve Barrow says both Greece and Ireland may leave the Euro, though he suggests this would be next year not this. There is a lot of internet coverage from the last 24 hours suggesting that Greece may leave the Euro as well as coverage of the (modest) slides in the Euro and in European stock markets. There are also questions being raised about the whole Euro project eg Bank of New York analyst Neil Mellor "the whole affair has once more raised questions about the political and structural mechanisms of the eurozone".

I suppose we are now in the last chance saloon where we see if the EU will decide to fund a bail out for Greece. Politically this is difficult particularly because Greece has repeatedly concealed the true state of its economy from the EU and from world markets. And the EU has said yesterday that it won't bail out Greece.