Toll Free: (877) 449-6753
Greek President Karolos Papoulias slammed Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble for insulting his nation. Greeks are angry because of German officials almost daily lectures on the appalling state of the Greek economy.
A livid President Papoulias singled out Schaeuble after he suggested Greece might go bankrupt. Wolfgang Schaeuble is warning “Greek promises aren’t enough for us anymore”, and he has likened Greece to a bottomless pit. Finnish and Dutch leaders have also strongly condemned Greece.
“I don’t accept insults to my country by Mr. Schaeuble”… Papoulias, an 82-year-old veteran of Greece’s resistance struggle against the Nazi occupation of World War Two lashed out–Who is Mr. Schaeuble to ridicule Greece? Who are the Dutch? Who are the Finns? We always had the pride to defend not just our own freedom, not just our own country, but the freedom of all of Europe”.
Angela Merkel’s Germany’s government remains committed to enabling another aid package for Greece and doing what it can to avoid the first sovereign default in the euro zone. German leaders and many Germans are angry that it is primarily Germany that is required to bail out the “lazy, overspending Greeks”. Greek debt is massive due to selfish overspending that has gone on for years.
Television clips of Greek anti-austerity protesters, and politicians blaming Chancellor Angela Merkel for their financial difficulties incited anger in the patriotic pages of Germany’s best-selling daily, Bild. The news daily writes that Greeks and other European recipients of aid to which Germany is the biggest single contributor… “should put flowers outside our embassies and send the chancellor thank-you notes.” In one recent opinion poll, two thirds of Germans surveyed said they doubted Greece’s determination to reign in their financial sloth.
Resentment of the tough German stand on Greece’s failure to meet targets set by the EU and IMF in return for financial aid has escalated in recent months. Computer images of Angela Merkel in a Nazi uniform are showing up more and more in Greece. Protesters burned a German flag a few days ago. Germans are fuming over Greece’s Nazi name-calling.
The frenzied effort to bail out Greece and save it from a devastating debt default continues. But Germany may finely say they have had enough, and allow Greece to default.
Prophecy reveals that that the global superpower to emerge at the time of the end will be centered in Europe. As related in Daniel 2, the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar saw a great image of a human figure in a dream. The image has feet with 10 toes representing the grouping of 10 kings or leaders of nations who would form this final empire. The description given sounds hauntingly like some nations that comprise the European Union today. We believe Germany will lead this end-time Beast configuration.
The toes were composed “partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron,” which reveals that “the kingdom shall be divided” and “be partly strong and partly fragile” (verses 41-42). Also, “just as iron does not mix with clay,” the member nations of this kingdom will not coexist together for long (verse 43). These nations are described in a way that appears to indicate they preserve their individual cultures and political will. Some will be much more powerful than others. Just as Germany is much more powerful than Greece, each country is greatly different in persona—demonstrating a fragile friendship. Eventually, European leaders will give their power and authority to what the book of Revelation describes as an, animal-like leader—”the beast” who is cunning and brutal (Revelation 17:12-14); who also rules a system called the Beast. That leader has not risen to prominence yet. But that will happen soon—most likely in your lifetime.
Watch Europe… a major power shift is underway.
Steven LeBlanc
One of the most vivid images recorded in the book of Revelation is that of the “beast”. From the context of the prophecy it is clear that this beast is a political power that is central to the horrific events that will precede the return of Jesus Christ. In describing the image of the best, Revelation records that it has ten horns, the meaning of which is explained in Revelation 17: 12-13: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as of yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.”
As the angel’s explanation makes plain, the “horns” are kings or governments which, at the time of John’s recording of the prophecy, had not yet received their kingdoms. This may mean that when the book of Revelation was composed these governments were not yet in existence. Verse 13 says that the kings have “power and authority”, or to put it another way, they exercise sovereignty. A government is sovereign when it is vested with control over a population and territory to make decisions on behalf of the country or “kingdom”, and deals as the representative of that territory on par with other governments.
In verse 12 it says that they exercise their sovereignty “with the beast” and yet in verse 13 it says that they “give their power and authority to the beast”. How can it be that they can both exercise their authority with the beast but also give their authority to the beast? These two verses appear to be in contradiction. The most obvious explanation is that verse 12 provides an initial overview of how the ultimate relationship operates (sovereignty is exercised together) and verse 13 explains how the relationship comes into existence (the beast is given power to act as sovereign by the kings).
This interpretation is supported by the scripture which reflects that the ten kings do not appear to have been forced to give up their authority. The beast derives its power from the decision of these kings to give their sovereignty to it. It may be that the reason that such power is voluntarily given is because the beast is a creature of the kings’ own making.
We are told further in verse 13 that these ten end time kings share “one mind”, indicating a high level of unity. This seems to be a remarkable thing – how often is it that two governments, let alone ten, can be said to share a single mind? However, we do know that in a crisis unity between governments can be achieved quickly. That the kings and beast rule together for “one hour” further suggests that this relationship is possibly borne of a crisis or temporary state of affairs.
John uses the word “kings”, which calls to mind the understanding of government prevalent in his time. A government of this age was absolute and authoritarian – it was unheard of for a “king” to give away or cede voluntarily his authority. Thus the prophecy in this sense is counterintuitive to the political understanding of the day. John did not have the benefit of living in our modern time where due to a combination of technological development, globalization and political events, the modern concept of the sovereign and sovereignty is changing.
Nowhere is this more the case than in Europe. Here, in response to fifty years of attempts at greater political union, the notion that the nations of Europe would surrender their governments in favor of a super-national United States of Europe is discussed openly. But politicians are not driven by a desire to put themselves out of work, so the progress towards such a union has been painfully slow and halting. Even so, as Jean Monnet, a political scientist and the often recognized “architect of the European Union” was said to point out, “People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize necessity when a crisis is upon them.”
Indeed the crisis which has made it necessary for Europe’s governments to give their power and authority, or “sovereignty” to another entity seems to have dawned. The turbulence engulfing world markets since 2008 has caused individual European countries to come under pressure by the international lending institutions on which they rely. In just three months, the leaders and politicians in Greece and Italy have been forced from power not by their voting populations, but by financial institutions and banks. This display of power by the international financial markets has caused leaders throughout Europe to realize that no single country is capable of resisting such influences. In order to deal safely with the pressures of globalization, it is now evident that the individual states of Europe must seek a closer union.
This realization culminated this past week in European leaders meeting in Brussels to discuss handing over further sovereignty – or in other words, their power and authority. Of the various types of authority which a government or king may exercise over its subjects, the power to tax is perhaps the most essential. Yet in a desperate bid to find safety in numbers and stave off the onslaught of financial pressures, the vast majority of European governments have in a display of remarkable single-mindedness agreed to transfer supreme authority over this function to a central, as yet unnamed, entity.
Speaking of the deal, BBC Europe Editor Gavin Hewitt reported on his blog from Brussels: “Last night most of Europe’s governments gave up a chunk of their sovereignty. In the future, tax and spending plans will be shown to European officials before national governments. There will be automatic sanctions against those countries that overspend. A monetary union has moved towards being also a fiscal union.” To understand the significance of this, imagine if the United States gave the United Nations the power to veto its spending and tax policies.
Where this process will lead is yet uncertain. However, it may be confidently said that the decision to place the sovereign right of a country to tax under the control of a central, European authority, has broken down a further mental barrier to the creation of a super-national United States of Europe. Be this as it may, as was made evident by Britain’s refusal to join this plan, such a move is difficult for many to countenance. Nevertheless, of the twenty-seven governments in the European Union, it is no longer unrealistic that in coming years, given the right crisis, there may be ten countries which will hand over their full power and authority to a new entity – a type of United States of Europe. In the history of politics, such a move would be unprecedented. In terms of Bible prophecy – it would be exactly as expected.
Eye on Europe
Until recently there was much reticence amongst European leaders to broach the subject of greater consolidation in Brussels of finances and power. However, at a Christian Democratic Union party meeting on Monday Chancellor Merkel said that Europe presently faced its “toughest hour since the second world war” and that “a radical change in thinking was needed in Europe to overcome the eurozone debt crisis”, according to the Financial Times. The radical change in thinking Chancellor Merkel was proposing is what she described as “more Europe, not less” – greater European integration.
Until recently Chancellor Merkel didn’t have the domestic political capital to make such proposals – more Europe has always been seen by the German populace as Germany bankrolling the “club-Med” states. However, as the reality of the eurozone crisis has hit the German public, it has become clear that there is no longer a choice: Germany must help its struggling European counterparts, knowing that if one fails the whole European project is at risk. So, now we are starting to see the beginnings of Germany’s quid pro quo.
Chancellor’s Merkel’s proposals (and her party) are numerous. Most notable was the proposal to introduce a new financial transactions tax – the so-called Tobin tax – in the 17-member eurozone. This would be a significant step towards providing Europe with a financial independence from its member states that it has not previously enjoyed. As well as this step towards fiscal union, members of the CDU included a radical political union reform proposal – the direct election by EU voters of future presidents of the European Commission. Also proposed was the consolidation of certain fiscal controls in Brussels – amongst other things the power to impose sanctions on countries that fail to meet agreed budget guidelines.
While Chancellor Merkel is reportedly for “more Europe not less”, the same cannot be said for Britain’s Prime-Minister David Cameron. He too views this crisis as an opportunity for reform of Europe and is said to support closer union within the 17-member eurozone that Britain is not a part of. He realizes that he doesn’t have a choice – Britain needs a strong eurozone as much as Germany. But in respect of the 27-member European Union which Britain forms a part of, his reform proposals stress deregulation and repatriation of power from Brussels to member states – apparently contradictory aims.
But while Britain remains a chicane in the road for Germany, it is unlikely to be a roadblock. As Prime Minister Cameron remarked this week at the London Lord Mayor’s banquet, if Britain wants to keep its seat at the EU negotiating table, it will risk becoming further removed from the Brussels power-base if the core eurozone group consolidates leaving it in the second-tier group of EU members. But if it doesn’t agree to German reforms, Germany may not be prepared to loosen the purse strings for its fellow eurozone members. Britain may not have much choice but to agree or leave the EU, and Prime Minister Cameron has made clear for now that leaving the EU is not an option.
Eye on Europe
In Europe, the headlines this week were dominated by whether Greece will be forced out of the common currency, the euro. But as doubts over Greece’s future in Europe lead the news coverage, this may soon be overshadowed by the growing prospect of an exit from the EU by another member state, the United Kingdom. While it is commonly understood in Europe that the British commitment to the European Union is at the best of times tepid, what is clear now is that as a result of a the financial crisis engulfing those countries who share the euro as their currency, a new type of union is emerging. The exact nature of the new ‘Europe’ may not be completely clear, but the growing sentiment is that it will be one that does not include Britain.
This week the German news magazine Der Spiegel online edition ran an article entitled, ‘EU Summit Paves the Way for a Split Continent.’ Observing that the response to the crisis in the eurozone has led to a growing division within the EU, the magazine recounted the following regarding the recent summit of European leaders: “… when it finally ended in the early morning hours of Thursday…[i]t revealed the contours of a new Europe – a divided Europe, with a new border running between those countries which belong to the common currency area and those which do not. In the future there will be two Europes within the European Union.”
Common wisdom now seems to recognize that this division within Europe will lead to a ‘core’ Europe consisting of those countries who accept that to maintain a common currency requires the adoption of German policies for the whole of Europe as well as a general recognition of Berlin’s dominance. Labeling this core group “Merkel’s Europe”, Der Spiegel went on to say: “This new Europe has a nearly hegemonic leader, namely Germany. It has a goal, the stability of the euro. And it has a principle that reads: Those who botch their finances stand to lose a portion of their sovereignty.”
That the current economic crisis within Europe is leading to an increasingly divided Europe was also affirmed by the Financial Times this week. In an editorial by regular columnist Wolfgang Munchau, the point was made that in order to save the euro, policies will have to be adopted which diverge from the interests of those members, like Britain, that have stayed out of the euro currency: “The needs of market integration are different for a monetary union in trouble than for a wider club of countries primarily interested in free trade.”
Noting that the policies needed to save the euro will lead to the appointment of a central European government overseeing finances and economics, Mr. Munchau goes on to comment: “There is no need for non-eurozone members to establish similar structures among themselves, let alone to subject themselves to a regime run by – and in the interests of – the eurozone.”
This will inevitably force a choice on countries like the UK as to whether they will subject themselves to a European Union run, and increasingly appropriate for, only those countries that are part of the common euro currency. It will become even more difficult for Britain when, if what Der Speigel reckons is the case, the eurozone countries will now be forced to essentially fall into line with German leadership. In such a situation, Britain will find itself in a European Union run by Germany, which will lead to a difficult choice, as Mr. Munchau concludes: “For Britain, Sweden, Denmark and other non-eurozone countries the question is no longer simply whether they should join the euro, or not. It is whether they want to remain in an organization with which they will have increasingly less in common.”
The external pressure posed on Britain to exit the EU which may be brought about by recent developments is aided by the growing skepticism about Europe within British politics. CNBC.com this week reported on a rebellion amongst Conservative members of parliament in which a number of high profile members of the party backed a vote to authorize a referendum on Britain’s continued membership in the European Union. Speaking of the increasing chorus of discontent in Britain over the European Union, the article quoted one member of parliament as saying: “there’s always been a general euroscepticism, but it has hardened.” Combined with developments inside the EU that are pushing it in the direction of becoming a centralized, German dominated organization, such sentiment will make it difficult, if not impossible for Britain to stay in the EU.
Eye on Europe
Since the euro-zone’s leaders met in July, market instability has continued based mainly on fears of a Greek default and concerns over rising bond yields for euro-zone countries on the fringes of solvency. Thursday night Europe’s leaders met again with the intention of finding a solution. A hopeful, three-pronged approach to the market concerns was agreed, namely that (1) the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) would be more than doubled to 1 trillion euros (at the July meeting of euro-zone leaders the EFSF was increased to 440 billion euros); (2) banks holding Greek debt are to accept a write-off of 50% of debt (increased from the 20% proposed at the July meeting), and (3) European banks will be required to raise 106 billion euros in new capital by June 2012.
Though markets have reacted well to the deal, as with everything EU, it takes time for the summit-level agreements to filter down and be ratified by the individual euro-zone countries. Until that takes place, the deal is theoretical. Also theoretical is the increase in the size of the EFSF. Funding for the EFSF cannot come solely from the euro-zone countries themselves. To do so would raise their debt limits to such a level that many of them would suffer downgraded ratings meaning increased government borrowing costs. So the head of the EFSF is turning to China to discuss its terms for buying EFSF bonds.
The latest agreement among euro-zone leaders however has not resolved some of the key issues which strain the seams of the European project. The first issue is who takes the losses when debt has to be written down? European banks (mainly French and German), as well as the European Central Bank, are the largest holders of Greek debt. In the event of a default by either Greece or another ailing euro-zone economy, experts have predicted that some banks may not survive (nine banks failed the stress tests conducted earlier this year). Presently there is no European agreement on how those banks’ depositors will be protected in the event of such a default. However, this issue is not being discussed because national leaders know that it implicates fiscal transfer between nations.
The second issue is the economic agenda. In northern European countries there is a strong preference for austerity, after all Germany implemented painful labour market reforms in the mid-2000s causing unemployment to soar to around 13% but ultimately leading to its stronger export position now. By contrast, in 2001 at the time of joining the euro, Greece went on a spending spree increasing wage levels and worrying little about labour market competitiveness. But in the south, the Mediterranean countries need growth to be able to service their debt. Under the heavy hand of their rescuers they have been implementing austerity measures aimed at reducing their budget deficits and ultimately debt, but the spending cuts are unpopular and killing growth. As austerity kills growth, demand for unemployment benefits swells and imperilled government coffers are again depleted making the climb back to surplus all the more difficult.
The third issue is how to ensure fiscally responsible behaviour in the future. Germany wants to implement disciplinary measures imposing fines on governments running budget deficits. But such punishment is regarded as useless by some who argue that financially penalizing an indebted country only exacerbates the problem. Others don’t miss the opportunity to point out Germany’s hypocrisy since after its accession to the euro, it was cavalier (as was France) in its flouting of the agreement amongst euro-zone members to not exceed the agreed maximum debt to GDP ratio. Of equal concern is the effectiveness of this approach. While rigid discipline might punish profligate behaviour by spendthrift governments, what of those countries whose economies have collapsed for other reasons? Both Ireland and Spain had relatively well managed public spending but were crucified by the 2008 property crash. It doesn’t appear that the sort of rigid discipline Germany wants would be universally useful to stamp out rampant debt accumulation in the south.
National leaders seem reluctant to tell voters what they don’t want to hear – that is that if the euro unravels, everyone will suffer. As an export-lead economy, Germany benefits from the increased competitiveness of the currency which is due to the presence of the Mediterranean countries in the euro. If they were to leave, the value of the euro would shoot up leaving Germany’s exports uncompetitive. Likewise, the south does not seem to realize that they don’t have a choice but to stay either. If they were to leave, their currencies would be so highly devalued that inflation would skyrocket leaving them in a potentially worse situation than they currently find themselves in under austerity.
This all leads to the inevitable conclusion that Europe needs empowered and strong decision makers for all of Europe. National politics, riven with ideological divisions, and cultural rivalries amongst states, has meant that domestic governments have become ineffective for making decisions which require coordination of multi-national interests. It remains to be seen how long it will take leaders and voters to accept the inevitability of a more powerful and centralized European government.
Eye on Europe
