|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON IN 1996 -EURO DOOMED TO FAILURE
*
Peter Jay, the most
distinguished of all contributors to the
International Currency Review,
the former
British Ambassador to Washington, explained in the
ICR columns in
1996 why participation in the then
proposed single
(= collective) currency would be disastrous for
almost all the intended participants.
We
reproduce the timely and prescient arguments that he put forward.
*
WE TOLD YOU SO
PETER JAY’S WARNING IN
International
Currency Review Volume 23- 3 -August 1996
* AN AUTHORITATIVE 1996 WARNING ABOUT THE EURO
by
Peter Jay
Before we commence
with the brilliant and authoritative lecture of the author Peter Jay we feel
those who may not be acquainted with the man and his works will appreciate the
following details expressed in the
ICR
volume 30, 4. of October 10 -2005.
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR
Peter Jay, the son of the late
politician and former Cabinet Minister Douglas Jay, is acknowledged to
be the most fiercely intelligent among the generation to which the Editor and Publisher of the service belongs. He was one
of the earliest contributors to International
Currency Review, in 1969 and early in 1970’s.
Born on 7th
February 1937, he was educated at Winchester College and at Christ Church,
Oxford, where he gained a First Class Honours degree in Philosophy, politics
and Economics [PPE]. He was elected
President of the Oxford Union in 1960.
The Editor of
this service [ICR] was Jay’s exact contemporary at Christ Church.
Between 1961 and
1967, Peter Jay served at the British treasury, in 1967, he became Economics
Editor of The Times a post he held until 1977, and during
which time (from 1872 to 1977), he was the founder-presenter of TV’s
‘Weekend
World’.
From 1975 to
1976, he also fronted his own programme for ITV, ‘
The Jay Interview’
He was appointed
to be Ambassador to the United States in 1977, and he remained in
Washington until the end of the Callaghan Labour Government in 1979.
At a Christ
church Gaudy, Peter Jay quipped to your correspondent
[Christopher
Story - Editor of ICR]
that he thought he was
‘the only member of his generation whose career was going backwards’. This typically and amusingly modest understatement
could not be taken seriously, in the intervening years he has contributed
immeasurably to economic analysis, as his Darlington Economics Lecture
confirms.
In January 1990,
he was appointed the BBC’s Economics Editor.
The specialist unit he headed, a part of the News and Current
Affairs Directorate, provided economics, business and financial coverage to all
News and Current Affairs outlets across television and radio. He presented ‘The Money Programme’
when it was studio-based.
When he was appointed,
the then Director of BBC News and Current Affairs, Ian Hargreaves, observed
that
‘Peter is one of the outstanding economic journalists of his
generation’.
But he is much more: all agree that he is the outstanding
economic and financial thinker -presenter of our time. *
[Lecture
by Peter Jay]
DEFINITIONS
AND ASSUMPTIONS
This is an
opportunity for me to get off my chest an idea which has been going round my
head for 25 years, which I believe, of great importance and which has been
given new and great contemporary relevance by the proposal to create a Single
European Currency [Written in 1996].
The world I want
to talk about is pretty much the world we actually live in, but simplified
enough to make it possible to talk about it within the compass of a
lecture. The world itself is a closed
economy, which is to say that it does not trade with the moon or outer
space. It is made up of economies,
which for tonight’s purpose I will define as geographical areas containing
significant concentrations of economic activity
separated from
each other by evident political and natural frontiers.
We assume that
goods and services are fairly freely traded between these economies - or more
precisely between players in these economies - that capital may or may not be
free to move between these economies according to political decisions made by
the appropriate authorities in each case, and that labour faces large political
and practical obstacles in mitigating en masse between economies. THE COMPETITION FACTOR
These economies are, in a sense, in competition with each other. It is most important, however, to be clear about what that sense is-and what it is not.
Economies do not compete
with each other as business do; and attempts to portray the successes and failures
of economics as though they were a form of competition between great
enterprises -Great Britain Ltd and France SA -entirely
misrepresent the reality, for all the reasons which were powerfully explained
by Professor Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT]
in his polemic published last year [1995], entitled
‘Peddling
Prosperity’
Fundamentally - and this is not the place
to spell it out at length - the difference is that for an enterprise, the
success or proficiency of a competitor is bad news, essentially
because it threatens market share and profitability; whereas for an economy,
the success or proficiency of a trading partner (sometimes thought of as a
competitor) is good news,
essentially because it
offers better value for money and so higher living standards to the home
consumers and probably bigger markets to the home producers.
Nonetheless, there is a
sense in which an economy can become uncompetitive with the outside world; and,
if it does, that can have enormously serious consequences for employment in
that economy.
This has nothing to do with
whether it is a rich or poor economy, or whether that economy has absolutely
high or low levels of productivity.
It has entirely to do with
the relationship between the labour costs of a unit of outlook in the home
economy and the labour costs of a unit of output elsewhere.
We are speaking here not of a specific
product, but of the general structure of labour costs per unit of output across
the board in the economy in question.
UNCOMPETITIVENESS
In an economy
where the unit costs across the board are significantly out of line and above
the general level in the outside world, a chain reaction of consequences begins
to flow unless and until this imbalance is corrected.
Such an economy
may accurately and instructively be said to be so, as in the
Articles of the
International Monetary Fund,
in ‘fundamental disequilibrium’, which we express more
colloquially by saying it is
‘uncompetitive’.
It will be an
important question how far and under what conditions this affliction is
self-correcting.
I want to
emphasise at this point the central importance in this analysis of this idea,
the notion of an economy, which is uncompetitive in the sense defined. For it is from
that condition that
the consequences I shall discuss all flow; and it is
that
condition, I
shall contend, which explains those consequences.
So, please take
note, because, if you nod off [or if readers allow their
concentration to lapse here-Ed] at this point, the whole of what
follows will be completely mystifying.
An uncompetitive
economy is I repeat, a geographical area of substantial concentrations of
economic activity where the general level of labour costs per unit of output is
significantly higher than in the world outside.
DEPRESSED ECONOMIES AND AREAS.
Now we turn to
the consequences of such an imbalance.
An employer whose production activities are located in such an economy
will tend to find that similar products -goods and services -supplied to the
home and overseas markets by other employers whose production is located
outside that economy are either cheaper and more profitable than his own.
His lower
profitability, if he initially adopts that route, will in due course weaken his
will and/or his capacity to invest in new processes in the home location, and
to match the technical and managerial advances made by his competitors located
elsewhere.
His
competitiveness deficit increases; and his business will stagnate and dwindle.
If he takes the
other route, of trying to pass on his higher unit costs in the form of higher
prices to his customers, whether at home or abroad,
his business will
dwindle through a loss of sales, probably even faster than it will through lack
of investment. As business dwindles
under the conditions described, so employment will fall and unemployment
will rise. Incomes will also
fall; and so will living standards, at least relative to what they would
have been, had the initial lose of competitiveness not occurred.
PAY AND
UNEMPLOYMENT
Indeed, this process
suggests the first way in which the imbalance from which we started this
analysis might become self-correcting.
Classically, economists have thought that the involuntary unemployment
of those willing and able to work was impossible because an unemployed person
would always be willing to offer for less than those currently employed,
thereby
driving pay and labour costs down to the point where the labour market cleared
and everyone was employed.
There clearly had to be
something wrong with this theory, since large -scale involuntary unemployment
was an evident fact of historical and modern experience, not least in the most
advanced industrialised economies.
The very best explanation
for this phenomenon is known to economists in short-hand as the fact that “pay
is sticky downwards”, in other words that people are immensely reluctant
and slow to reduce money pay levels even when they are under economic pressure.
This may partly be a matter
of their personal attitudes to pay which, understandably enough, they are
liable not to think of as being a price, namely the price of labour, or
therefore, as being subject to the same kind of supply -and-demand logic as
the price of cabbages.
NO SCOPE TO BID WAGE LEVELS DOWN
It may partly also be that the way in which the
labour market works makes it in practice impossible for the individual or even
groups of individuals to present themselves to employers and to offer to bid
down the level of pay in order to get work for themselves to employers and to
bid down the level of pay in order to get work for themselves.
Strong social sanctions may well discourage
such behaviour. Existing trade union
agreements and bargaining power may prevent it. More to the point, employers may be reluctant to upset their
existing employees by lowering remuneration levels.
And in certain cases, social security incomes
paid only to people who are not at work, or not in possession of earned
incomes, may make it uneconomic for unemployed people to work for less than a
certain weekly figure, which may itself be above the level which would interest
a possible employer.
For all the reasons, in modern societies money
pay is adjustable only very slowly and painfully to adverse economic
conditions; and in consequence, it is perfectly possible in practice for an
economy to be and to remain uncompetitive in the sense that I have
defined for long periods of time.
RECAPITULATION
At this stage in the argument, certain points
need to be emphasised before we proceed:
·
First,
it
is not suggested here that uncompetitiveness in the sense that I have defined
is the only or necessarily most important cause of unemployment;
·
Secondly,
it should be obvious that uncompetitiveness is a relative condition, and cannot
therefore afflict every economy simultaneously, and:
·
Thirdly,
since the world is a closed economy, global unemployment cannot be caused by
global uncompetitiveness, though, if substantial parts of the world are
uncompetitive with other parts and suffer unemployment in consequence, they can
thereby contribute to the global unemployment total which will not sum to zero,
since negative unemployment is not, except by some artificial statistical
manoeuvre, a recognisable phenomenon.
SOVEREIGN ECONOMIES
&
REGIONAL ECONOMIES
Next we need to
introduce a distinction between two different kinds of economy as a concept
separating the world into mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive
(oceans and poles apart) geographical areas.
Some economics
coincide with politically defined areas, governed by a single sovereign
authority. Commonly in practice, though
perhaps not theoretically necessarily, such areas also employ single common
money or currency, which in its turn is commonly managed by the sovereign
government or by the Central Bank so empowered by that government.
Such economies we
will here call
“sovereign
economies”
to distinguish them from the second type
of economy in which we are interested.
These are again
geographical areas containing significant concentrations of economic activity. And they commonly suggest themselves as
naturally coherent units with a discernable identity. But they are only parts of sovereign economies in the sense we
have defined the term. Economies which
are actually component parts of sovereign economies we will call here
“regional
economies”, or just
“regions”.
We shall disregard
the two other theoretical possibilities, namely:
·
Economies containing more than one sovereign
economy, in the sense in which one might talk about the Caribbean economy or
the Oceanic economy in the Pacific.
·
Economies which contain parts but not all of
more than one sovereign economy, as for example one might want to talk of the
Mediterranean economy or great lakes economy.
I an happy to anticipate en passant the
question- what is the status of the economy or economies of the
EUROPEAN
UNION? by saying, that in my view,
it is an area whose political leaders are
debating a mooted transition from being a plurality of sovereign economies
To Being A Sovereign Economy That Contains Regions.
There is in my view no need to develop some
extra or special definition of categories of economy to cover the European
case.
SOVEREIGN ECONOMIES
AND
REGIONAL UNCOMPETITIVENESS
Sovereign economies and regional economies are
both susceptible to becoming uncompetitive in the sense, which I have
defined.
But at a certain point the
stream of consequences of being thus uncompetitive diverge from each other in
the two cases.
A sovereign economy, experiencing
uncompetitiveness, will face rising unemployment just like an uncompetitive
regional economy. But then the
problem, takes different forms for each case.
The uncompetitive sovereign economy
will experience either a deteriorating trade balance, or a deepening recession,
or some combination of the two.
The uncompetitive regional economy will have no recorded
trade balance, though the net flow of goods and services in
and out of it may certainly alter adversely just as for sovereign economy. Its
main overt symptom will be a deepening recession, or indeed depression.
* UNCOMPETITIVENESS AND CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES
But, whereas the sovereign economy’s
deteriorating external balance may force the government and Central bank to
intervene by drawing on official reserves to finance the external deficit, the
regional
economy’s imbalance will automatically be financed by
the ordinary flow of payments within the single currency area to which it
belongs.
A regional economy cannot therefore have an
overt balance of payments problem or, what is the same thing in other words, a
currency crisis of the rest of the sovereign economy to which it belongs, there
is no possibility of normal trading, let alone capital flows and speculation,
causing its money to be sold short against the money of the rest of that
sovereign economy.
A pound is a pound, whether it be in
Devon - Dover- Dyfed- Derby- Darlington or Dundee.
This may sound like a mercy for the regional
economy, and it does contain some merciful elements.
For example, the regional economy cannot suffer
from the consequences of speculation that the value of its money may decline on
the foreign exchange markets against the value of other currencies.
It cannot therefore be subject to capital
flight inspired by such a fear, though of course, if the sovereign economy
to which it belonged suffered such a fate, the region could suffer along with
the rest of the sovereign economy.
UNCOMPETITIVENESSS AND FISCAL TRANSFERS
·
Secondly,
by being a part of a sovereign economy, a regional economy may - I emphasise
‘may’, not by any means necessarily ‘will’ - benefit from some fiscal transfers
from the government of the sovereign economy.
These are in two kinds:
·
Automatic transfers
which flow directly
as a result of the depression of the economy activity in the uncompetitive
region, through for example reduced liabilitities to income, corporation, value
added tax (VAT) and other taxation, and increased receipts of unemployment and
other social security payments financed from the centre, and:
·
Discretionary further help
directed
from the centre in order
to ease the pain of the affected region. UNCOMPETITIVENESS AND ITS REMEDIES
However, it is the central contention of this
analysis that these advantages are outweighed by one massive disadvantage,
which makes the position of the uncompetitive region
far worse,
economically and
politically, than the position of an uncompetitive sovereign economy.
What an uncompetitive economy needs above all
is to restore its competitiveness. If
it fails to do that, then it is doomed to economic depression, high
unemployment and falling or depressed living standards over an indefinite
period.
Everything that it does, or tries to do, will
tend to be anaemic, unsustainable, against the grain of the marketplace and
discouraging to those animal spirits which
Adam Smith
saw as the driving force of all economic activity.
In the end the population, which the
uncompetitive economy can no longer sustain, will face an ugly choice-to remain
and be destitute, or to leave. The old
and the weak will probably stay in poverty.
The young and the strong will leave, not because they want to leave,
though some may, but because the alternative is worse.
Generations later it may all seem to have ended
well; but that will not diminish the pain at the time; nor the waste of the
social capital that is left behind, nor the sufferings of those migrants for
whom the move does not work out. But
how can competitiveness be restored?
A sudden burst of faster productivity growth could
certainly contribute to lower relative unit labour costs.
But what would bring about such a spurt?
Market forces will be pointing in
precisely the opposite direction.
High
unit costs mean low profitability. Low profitability triggers the outflow of capital, not inflows,
and
discouragement for enterprise and for overall economic growth.
The public sector can theoretically try to fill
the breach. But then the public sector
may, indeed should, already have been doing all that it judged it could and
should do -
and
could afford -before the problem arose.
If it lies within the power of the public
sector to bring about a discretionary great leap forward in productivity now,
why had it not done so before [Written in 1996], since gains in productivity must
always contribute to economic welfare in general, at least as conventionally
measured?
Moreover, governments have their own
imperfections. The categories of
regional aid which commend themselves to the politicians in charge are not
necessarily the forms of aid, which go furthest to the roots of the problem.
A few millions of pounds sterling on a conspicuous white elephant which the politician can be photographed [There have been many such examples in the reign of King Tony since 1997] and better still a filmed-opening, may have stronger appeal to him than the money used to address the underlying competitive imbalance. WHY,
you may answer, do development projects funded from Brussels always seem to be
accompanied by enormous notices informing the passer-by that this great
blessing comes to him by courtesy of the generosity and largesse of the
European Union?
The harsh reality is that it is normally
extremely improbable that a serious competitive problem of a whole economy, be
it sovereign or regional, will be solved by engineering a sharp rise in
productivity over and above the natural gains being made in the ordinary course
of business.
Somehow or other lower pay, relative to the outside world
has to be part of the story; and it is typically the
only part of
the story that policymakers have any hope of influencing - and then
only in the
case of a sovereign economy.
And it is here that we come to the real crux and the central
message of this analysis.
THE ROLL OF THE EXCHANGE RATE
The sovereign economy, precisely because it has
an overt external payments balance which it may be financed by changes in
official reserves and which, if not so financed, may stimulate a change in the
value of its currency against other currencies in the foreign exchange market,
has an
option which the regional economy does not -
even
though both may be confronted by identically the same difficulty, namely
uncompetitiveness as I have already defined it.
·
The sovereign
economy can experience a change in the value of ITS currency.
At
this stage in the argument, we are not concerned with such tactical questions
as whether this comes about as a result of:
·
Some
direct command decision by the government, for example to declare a new parity
under some fixed but adjustable exchange rate regime, or:
·
Whether
it comes about spontaneously as a result of market forces, the changing
external balance and the effects of that on sentiment in the foreign exchange
markets, or:
·
As
in the case of Britain’s ignominious exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism of
the European monetary System, first one or the other.
The point
IS that the exchange rate can
change.
For a regional economy, that cannot happen
because there is no currency unique to that economy whose price is registered
in foreign exchange transactions.
Such a change in the exchange rate of the home
currency there and then changes all values in the home economy in terms of the
currencies of the rest of the world, except and unless, and only to the degree
that home currency prices move to nullify this effect.
Such an offsetting movement in home currency
prices is of course quite probable for those imports whose market price is cost
determined.
But there is no reason why other
domestic prices should nullify the effects of currency devaluation, unless
either or both of two conditions obtain.
·
The
home economy is operating under such overall pressure of demand that prices,
measured in terms of foreign currency, quickly return to their pre-devaluation
levels, and:
·
Labour
is supplied to the market under such monopolistic conditions that the
suppliers, mainly trade unions, can post more or less any price they like for
labour and choose to restore the pre-devaluation purchasing power of pay.
There came a time in the 1980’s, conspicuously
represented at the bank of England, in arguing that the effects of devaluations
are normally nullified within four years; and there was even produced a little
rule of thumb equation to describe the rate at which this happened, mainly in
the second and third years.
The best that can be said for this work is that
it may have looked like this to anyone who looked narrowly at British post-war
experience.
But any claims to general theoretical validity are entirely
specious; and the experience of the 1990’s demonstrates
that a devaluation can, not merely restore, but actually
transform
the
competitiveness of a sovereign economy to a point where neighbouring nations
complain so bitterly that they take to muttering darkly about administrative
retaliation against what they denounce as unfair competition, up to and
including threats to invoke obscure clauses of the
Treaty of Rome
under which (British) exports to the rest of the European single market could
allegedly be subject to restrictions or punitive imposts
[Again to
remind the viewer that these words were written in
1996] DEVALUATION
AS A SAFETY VALVE
The fact is that devaluation can work, if conditions are right,
and that nothing else will -
not
fiscal
transfers from some supposedly benevolent central government,
not
automatic fiscal transfers,
not sudden productivity
leaps forward,
not smoothly adjusting reductions in
nominal wages,
not
spontaneous migrations of cheerful
job-seekers.
NOBODY. Of course, should be deceived. We are not speaking here of some magic wand
that painlessly accomplishes huge economic benefits.
Devaluation of the
currency works, when it
does, precisely because IT LOWERS PAY
AND IS ACCOMPANIED BY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH PREVENT IT FROM BEING INCREASED
AGAIN,
unless and until,
real gains in productivity earn such increases in the world marketplace. Clearly, such any such remedy is logically,
though not chronologically, a last resort.
It would be better not to be uncompetitive in the first
place.
It would be better, were it not impossible, to accomplish
the restoration of competitiveness by compensating forward leaps in
productivity or even by smoothly adjusting nominal pay levels.
In the case of regional economies, it might
even be better, were it not everywhere contradicted by the disappointing
lessons of experience, to be able to rely on successfully operating regional
policies, transferring fiscal resources and otherwise engendering the required
new regional dynamism.
But as a logical last resort, devaluation is
therefore the only resort.
If the other better resorts were available,
they would have been used. And a last
resort is nevertheless
vital for being the last resort.
The safety valve that can blow on a pressure
vessel, the aircraft emergency exit that will open under enough pressure, the
ejector seat that can save the pilot, are all last resorts, but we sneer at
them at our or somebody else’s-peril.
FURTHER
RECAPITULATION
Let us summarise where we have got to here and
examine the implications.
Both sovereign and regional economies can be
uncompetitive.
A regional economy can be in theory can in
theory hope for succour from the fiscal action of the government of the
sovereign economy to which it belongs, or from a smooth adjustment of money
wages, or from nature’s remedy -the outward migration of its able-bodied
working population.
Such remedies are unlikely, unpleasant or both.
A sovereign economy can also in theory look to
cuts in money pay and to outward migration of its population, no less
improbable in the one case and unpleasant in the other - perhaps more so - than
for the regional economy.
But it can also devalue, and, if it is prepared
to pay the price, it will find that that can work and that though unpleasant,
it is far less so than the long slow agonies of being a depressed region with
no control over its own fate.
SO WHAT?
This conclusion, if accepted, of course raises
a whole host of supplementary questions:
·
Are all regional
problems simply suppressed exchange rate problems?
·
If
it is so much the better to be a sovereign economy than a regional economy,
should all
regions aspire to become sovereign, i.e. have their own currencies?
·
What is the
minimum size of a sovereign economy or currency area?
·
Why did East
Germany ‘aspire’ to become a region of the sovereign German economy?
·
Why is the
sovereign US economy so large?
·
Is Europe simply
wrong to intend to convert a plurality of sovereign economies into one
sovereign economy with many regions? [Again to remind the viewer that this essay was written in 1996 by
Peter Jay -details above] I will attempt brief answers to these questions:
1.Are most
regional problems simply suppressed exchange rate problems?
In so far as regional problems are essentially
competitiveness problems, which means that at the present general level of
employment costs the natural market -driven level of economic activity does not
employ all of those willing and able to work, and that there is a pay level
above subsistence at which all could be economically employed, given the
natural endowments and general structural features of the local economy, then I
say
‘Yes’:
Regional problems can correctly and
helpfully be seen as suppressed exchange rate problems, that is: problems which
could and would be amenable to exchange rate adjustments,
subject
to what was said above about the general conditions required for successful
devaluation and subject to what is also said below about
minimum
currency areas.
2.If it is so much
better to be a sovereign economy than a regional economy, should all regions
aspire to become sovereign, i.e. to have their own currencies?
·
All regional economies should aspire to be sovereign
economies unless:
·
The character and record of the economy is such
that there is no serious prospect of it ever having a competitiveness problem;
·
Becoming a sovereign economy would infringe
what is said below about minimum currency areas; or:
·
There are such huge fiscal or other
uncovenanted benefits associated with regional status that they outweigh both
the effectiveness and the self-reliance arguments for economic sovereignty.
3.What is the
minimum size of a sovereign economy or currency area? The minimum size for a currency area and
therefore for a sovereign economy in the sense defined in this analysis is one
that satisfies the following two conditions:
·
That the administration and transaction costs
do not exceed the benefits; and:
1.That
the area must be large enough for prices, including (perhaps especially) pay,
to be genuinely fixed in local currency units without automatic or continuous
comparison back to external reference standards.
It follows that there would be no benefit in establishing a
sovereign economy in an area where pay was set by some wider agreement in which
pay levels were expressed and determined in the units of the wider area.
The more local the
bargaining, the more local the scope for a separate currency-though with a
floor in size, where in reality the pay and price setters would be looking at
external reference values.
4.Why was East
Germany prepared to become a region of the sovereign German economy?
People in East Germany wanted to become part of an all-German sovereign economy
partly because they saw this simply as an extension of the overriding
imperative for
German unification,
partly because they
wanted their savings validated in a money which the outside world would honour
(which was not much different from just wanting to receive large cash gifts
from their richer cousins in the west) and, partly because they believed that
the West German taxpayer would be willing to transfer large enough sums to the
east for the sake of unity to outweigh the consequences of the huge
competitiveness deficit, which they were likely to face, if one ostmark became
one deutschemark, which of course what happened.
[It is said that the major cost of this hugely
expensive exercise was eventually paid for by the other main contributors of
the EU?]
In my judgment, at the time both they and
Germany as a whole would have done better to have reformed the
ostmark
and
allowed it to find its own value against the
deutschemark,
although it may be that such an arrangement would have been so imperfectly
understood that an unmanageable migration of able-bodied labour to the West
would have forced the hands of the authorities. 5.
Why is the sovereign
US economy so large?
The sovereign American economy is so large
because the sovereign United States is so big.
Whether or not this arrangement has been in the economic interests of
the regional economies of the United States, i.e. of the people who live in
those places, is a different matter.
There is in my
opinion a case for saying that an historical error was made at the end of the
Civil war when the Confederate Dollar in the Southern States was abolished in
favour of the federal Dollar by a political fiat from Washington.
The South remained economically depressed for a
century; and its recovery only began in the 1970’s
With President Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights programme,
which
for the first time ever made it practical for the labour force in the Southern
States, which was predominantly Black,
to migrate north and west in search of
better living standards. The political and social consequences for them and for the areas
to which they moved in the northeast, the mid-west and the west coast were
painful and profound.
If the southern regional economy had been able
to overcome its competitiveness difficulties in some less crude and insensitive
way so that a much bigger proportion of working people had been able to find
work nearer to where they wanted to live, much waste and suffering might have
been avoided;
and
if a
separate
Southern currency
freely adjusting
against the Federal Dollar could have contributed to such an outcome, it would have
been well worth it. AND EUROPE? 6.
Is Europe simply
wrong to wish to convert a plurality of sovereign economies into one sovereign
economy with many regions? So, now, lastly, we come to the question of ‘EUROPE’.
It is fashionable to look at the question of
Europe’s future [since 1999, of course, current-Ed.]
currency
arrangements and Britain’s place in them as though the questions were whether
Britain in particular is either ready or willing to join the arrangements,
which at least the hard core of the rest are expected to make by 1999…and
whether or not Britain should make the sacrifice of some political sovereignty
for the sake of a great economic good.
All of this is comprehensively back to front:
·
The BIG questions should be:
·
What are the
best long-term economic arrangements for Europe?
and: Should
Europe’s economic interests be sacrificed for a political gesture?
·
Secondly,
What
is in the best long-term economic interests of Britain? and:
Would the economic sacrifice entailed by joining be justified by
the political advantages of first -class membership?
·
Thirdly,
even if the EMU is the wrong long-term economic arrangement for
Europe and Britain are there short-term or political reasons for establishing a
temporary monetary union? I will now briefly answer the
questions: ·
The best
long-term economic arrangements for Europe (on its own terms) are those that
will enable it to fulfil its goal of becoming a large country with global
influence, social harmony and economic success.
·
It will
fail in all or most of these objectives if the regional economies, of which it
aims to be composed, are in such a state of competitive imbalance that
political cohesion and social harmony are destroyed. ·
They will
be in such a state of competitive imbalance if there is no mechanism for
adjusting such imbalances, which tend to occur normally and naturally in the
ordinary course of economic events. ·
The
prevailing abject plight of France in consequence of its 12-year struggle to
uphold the symbol of a strong franc (le franc fort) in defiance of all
normal laws of economic gravity, illustrates the point. ·
If there
is only one currency-whether or not the notes and coins are identical is
trivially irrelevant-then the mechanism
of exchange rate adjustment will not be available. As we have already seen in this
analysis, no other mechanism can be relied upon instead.
The provisions in the Maastricht treaty for
convergence are empty and irrelevant.
They do not deal with convergence of competitiveness, but merely of
nominal and monetary variables that are only partially related to the crucial
question of competitiveness. They only even pretend to aim for convergence
before monetary union begins-with no mechanism for promoting it, let alone,
guaranteeing it, thereafter. [It is in the nature of our
people to have seen the impracticable nature of the Single Currency whereas our
neighbours beyond our shores are easily taken in by bogus schemes of grandeur]
We may
suspect that the European Commission is happy enough to engineer massive
regional competitiveness imbalances by promoting monetary union and thus
frustrating the normal workings of the exchange rate mechanism to promote
balance, because it foresees that strong political demands will soon arise for
vigorous regional policies to be devised and implemented from the centre,
thus providing a wholly new political pretext for
increasing both the budget and the power of the Commission.
But as we have seen, however much money and
power that the European Commission posses, it is improbable that
they will be
able to have any significant impact upon the competitiveness imbalance problem
which a single currency will pose. This will leave the problem to nature’s remedy-
namely, the
migration of population. It seems hard to believe that the political, economic and social
success of Europe, whether one may approve or disapprove of the EU objective,
will be promoted by establishing at the heart of its economic functioning
a
mechanism, which depends for equilibrium upon the enforced migration, on pain
of destitution, of its populations in the tens of millions.
·
Away
from the places to which they are tied by natural affection, by family
relationships, by social capital and individual will:
·
Across
frontiers of language, culture, historical experience and law;
·
To
places of which they know little, which they like less and where they are so
far from welcome that they are likely on arrival to be violently assaulted.
·
If this is the true
character of monetary union, conceived by politicians who saw it as little more
than trite gesture of nationhood, to go with a blue flag and a jolly anthem,
then we say that it is not in the long-term interests of Europe and very far
from being a sensible economic sacrifice even for the sake of a large political
objective.
Indeed, one may wonder that anyone who professes to hope for the
success of the political union of Europe could desire to implant at its
foundations such an engine of destruction
It cannot be in the long-term economic
interests of Britain to be strapped to such a device, however much the UK
Foreign Office may lament the supposed losses of caste of being outside the
inner core.
Being at the inner core of a
nuclear explosion just means you die a few spilt seconds earlier. Britain has no interest whatever in destroying for ever its
ability to correct fundamental competitiveness deficits by the only method that
has a chance of working, nor of seeing other countries of Europe impose this
economic catastrophe on themselves, if there be any way of preventing it
happening.
·
Furthermore:
·
A
temporary monetary union would indeed be less damaging to Europe than a
permanent one, but only because it is temporary
·
Short
-term fixing of exchange rates does much less harm, except to the reputations
of the foolish politicians who attempt it, than long-term fixing, because
fundamental competitive imbalance is a long-term problem, which normally arises
gradually over a prolonged period-as in the United Kingdom between 1950 and
1965 - and which the exerts its terrible economic price over an even longer
term, as in the Southern States of America for perhaps a century.
·
A
short-term monetary union might also have an attraction for
France,
which is
[was in 1996-Ed]
caught between the rock of the immovable object of a political commitment to a
hard franc and the hard place of an absolutely irresistible imbalance.
·
A
monetary union of Germany and France - and such other hangers - on from the
rest of Greater Germany as wished to join -might provide a convenient
camouflage for a devaluation
of the French franc, which would give
the present leaders the political breathing space they need to alleviate
France’s economic plight.
Of course, if any
such monetary union continued for long, the present competitiveness problem
would in due course resurface as France’s costs gradually moved out of line
with Germany’s, as is almost inevitable for long historical reasons. But as a piece of short -term theatre to
cover a much needed economic adjustment, it just might appeal
[again
to remind the viewer that this essay written in 1996].
It is as a long-term measure that
the attractions of monetary union are weakest and not, as is glibly supposed,
in MUCH current discussion, strongest.
·
Note-
The relevance and accuracy of Peter Jay’s warning [those
many years ago] should be apparent to ALL except
Jean-Claude
Trichet *
WHY HAVE WE REPUBLISHED THIS
ANALYSIS?
Following the death of
Sir Edward Heath
at
the age of 89 in July 2005, it has emerged, as discussed elsewhere in this
issue [International Currency Review -Vol 30,4]
that this former British prime Minister,
who coaxed Britain into the EU
Collective on a false prospective, took
German
bribes as did the other signatory to the [1972]
accession document,
Geoffrey Rippon.
Heath
was the longest-serving penetration agent of the
German
Abwehr
and the secret Nazi International intelligence service,
DVD,
based at Dachau,
which
controlled and controls the IRA [Irish
Republican Army], intelligence sources have further informed us
[International
Currency Review - the sole independent currency journal -established
since 1969-Full details on
EDP
bulletin
board] as also reviewed elsewhere, that
huge sums of
‘Black Ops’funds are routinely disbursed every time an EU treaty comes up for
signing,
with : John
Major
and Tony Blair
Having both allegedly accepted
‘facility payments’
remitted in exchange for their signatures from the
‘Black Ops’
fund
maintained in Switzerland for this purpose.
Given the sordid facts as stark as these
It is unsurprising that rational argument such as the careful
analysis of
Peter Jay,
have had no
effect
[our man -British Ambassador to the United
States in Washington in 1965] set out in the [Oct 10-2005 -ICR publication-Vol 30,4 -detailed on EDP
bulletin board]
Those of us, who, in Britain, have opposed EU
membership from the outset, know that we have long since
‘ won the
argument’-but to no avail.
No
amount of rational analysis and warning makes any difference and many of us
have for years been puzzled as to why this should have been so.
NOW AT LAST,
THE REASON HAS SURFACED
Surprise! Surprise! These idiotic and reckless policies are being pursued NOT because they have any merit, but because policy makers and high office-holders are bribed for geopolitical reasons, to sign up. The filthy secret did not emerge into the public domain until the death of Edward Heath -July 2005
Which
prompted intelligence operatives to spill the beans to
International Currency Review. [Edward
Heath had for over 60 years been an agent of the Nazi Intelligence
since being enrolled at Balliol College,
Oxford in the early 1940’s-full details on
EDP
bulletin board]
[Whose last wish to have his
burial service in Salisbury Cathedral with all the pomp and ceremony was
granted by his co-conspirator Tony Blair and others about him who have yet
to be revealed]
For confirmation of the above contact:
International Currency
Review World reports Limited 108 Horseferry Road Westminster London SW1P 2EF
Editor: Christopher Story FRSA
Veteran UK
financial and intelligence analyst
E-mail: cstory@worldreports.org
Website: www.worldreports.org
* * * [Font altered-bolding and underlining used-comments in brackets]
OCTOBER-2005
* FINALLY REMEMBER!!!
*
FROM A Prime Minister in 1848 to another Gordon Brown in June 2007
Over a Hundred and Fifty Seven years ago a great patriotic Prime Minister -Foreign Secretary -Lord Palmerstone (Henry John Temple) -beloved by his People defined the principle of nationality as follows:
“ Providence meant mankind to be divided into separate nations, and for this purpose countries have been bounded by natural barriers, and races of men have been distinguished by separate languages, habits, manners, dispositions, and characters…” (1848)
“…We have in the first place to say that the Business of an English Government, is to pursue that course of Foreign Policy which on the whole they may think right; and not to attempt the impossible task of at all times and upon all subjects doing that which is agreeable to all Foreign Governments. A man who in private life attempts to please everyone, invariably fails; and the Government of a great country would not be more successful in such an endeavour… . It must at times be an advantage to a foreign Prince…in the present state of the continent to visit England and to see with his own eyes, how Liberty may be combined with Loyalty, Freedom with public order, and how the Respect which is shown by the Crown for the Rights of the Subject and for the enactment of the Law produces corresponding Feelings on the Part of the People and inspires them with similar Respect for the Rights of the Crown and for the Laws which secure the Liberties and the Property of all , from the highest to the lowest in the Land. ”
For a full statement of his Principles:
“I hold with respect to alliances that England is a Power sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England-apart from questions which involve her own particular interests, political or commercial-is to be the champions of justice and right, pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and wherever she thinks wrong has been done…
It is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” [In 1848 Lord Palmerstone was Foreign Secretary at the age of sixty-three. He entered Parliament in 1807- Secretary at War in 1809; 1811-28 (most years) War Office; 1830- 1852 Foreign Office; 1852-55 -Home Office; 1855-65.
‘ Born 1784 in Park Street Westminster. Family home ‘Broadlands’ Hampshire. Died on the morning of October 18, 1865. And the last candle [last of his contempories] of the Eighteenth century was out.’
* *
[It is significant that the word ‘England’ was not a word despised in our House of Commons during the time of this great patriot of England and only closer to our own times has the word Britain taken its place though we do detect a slight revival now in existence. ]
* *
*
*
* * * 13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
*
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU? * 67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM * FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE * July 18-2007 ALSO JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/) The Petition reads as follows: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature." Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008 Eurofacts 27th July 2007. * 'The Spirit of England' by In London on St.George's Day -1953 *
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE *
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
* [All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
European Union Exposed-A Criminalised organisation/ ****Revealed after his death that Edward Heath an agent of Nazi International and traitor to his country for 60 years./****The term DVD stands for German Defence Agency or Secret Service/****Foreign Powers direct our government by payouts/**** A traitor full of honours from his country-Why?/**** What were the dark actors playing games which the patriot Dr David Kelly referred? - Was it an Illuminati plan to use biological weapons to reduce the population of the world by 95%?/**** German-Nazi-Geopolitical Centre established in Madrid in 1943 by Heinrich Himmler/****A plague of treachery-corruption and sculduggery has taken over once proud democracies/**** The Enemy is everywhere/****Warning from our man in Washington/****German-Nazi-Geopolitical Centre/.**** Germany as strongman of Europe- A Germanised Empire in the making/**** A warning message to the freedom loving people of England/ **** 50 years of surrender/ ****Britain can leave the EU unilaterally and cease payment says Queen's Counsel/
*
If you vote Conservative, Labour,
Lib-Dem, UKIP or the BNP, you'll be voting for the EU dictatorship.
All five party leaderships are EU controlled. That's why your vote
doesn't make a difference - all these five parties have the same
policies: the EU's policies. No Bilderberger, Freemason or Common Purpose graduate should ever
be allowed to hold public office. UKIP and the BNP are honey traps to neutralise activists: UKIP is
riddled with Freemasons and Common Purpose like a cancer, and the
BNP controlled by the Edgar Griffin (father) and son Nick
Freemasonry family. The 350,000 freemasons and the 40,000 strong
Common Purpose Organisation are the (mostly unknowing) foot soldiers
of the EU in Britain. (Which makes the BNP the easiest party to
clean up - get rid of the Griffins, and put in a real anti-EU
leadership.) For more
details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF
UKIP
OR
INTEND TO JOIN THEM
TAKE NOTE OF THE MESSAGE
ABOVE
THE EDP HAS BEEN
CRITICAL OF THE
MANAGEMENT AND
LEADERSHIP OF THE UKIP
FOR SOME TIME NOW AS IS
SHOWN IN A NUMBER OF
BULLETINS OVER THE
PAST FEW YEARS WHERE WE
HAVE CRITICISED THEIR
LACK LUSTRE PERFORMANCE
AS THEY FAILED TO
MOTIVATE THEIR
MEMBERSHIP TO A MORE
DETERMINED CIVIL
DISOBEDIENCE CAMPAIGN
WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE
THE GOVERNMENTS TREMBLE
BUT THEY HAD NO WORRY
BECAUSE THEY HAD THEIR
OWN PERSONS IN CHARGE AT
THE TOP OF THE
ORGANISATION. THIS
FIGHTING SPIRIT HAS BEEN
LACKING AND WE CAN
CONFIRM THIS OURSELVES
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN
OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT WHEN
A MARCH WAS CANCELLED -
AND WATCH THE FARCE WHEN
CANDLES WERE HELD AND
THOUSANDS OF LETTERS
SENT TO MPS WHO KNEW
WHERE TO DISPOSES OF
THEM -AND ALL TO NO
AVAIL. IF YOU ARE
A MEMBER OF UKIP YOU
HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY
YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP SOME
APPEAR ON THE ALEX JONES
SHOW WHICH HAS BEEN
UNDER CLOSE SPOTLIGHT
RECENTLY AS BEING CLOSE
TO AN ISRAELI SECURITY
FIRM DETAILS ON OUR
WEBSITE .
IRONICALLY IT WAS A
CHANCE LOOK ON THE
INTERNET A FEW YEARS AGO
TO COME UPON THAT SITE
WHICH OPENED OUR MIND TO
THE ILLUMINATI.
THOUGH WE HAVE SOME
DETAILS OF THE
BILDERBERGERS ON OUR
SITE A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO WE FAILED TO
DO MORE RESEARCH- WE ALL
HAVE TO LEARN. THE
FAILURE OF UKIP WE HAVE
SUSPECTED FOR MANY
YEARS THAT
MANY AT THE TOP OF THEIR
ORGANISATION MIGHT BE
UNDERCOVER MEMBERS OF
THE ILLUMINATI. IT
IS A FAVOURITE TRICK OF
THEIRS TO SUPPORT ANY
PARTY OR ORGANISATION AT
THE OUTSET WHATEVER ITS
POLICY AS IT ALLOWS THEM
TO PUT THEIR OWN PEOPLE
IN TO CONTROL ITS
POLICES AS THEY BEHIND
THE SCENES SUPPLY THE
VITAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT.
Our intention is not to
benefit from this
disaster as since the
1999 European Election
we have NOT! accepted a
DONATION! from ANYONE!
and we closed membership
also because we did not
wish to split the vote
for UKIP but have stated
in the past that we
would contest another
election if it was ever
necessary to enter into
the affray again and
with the reputation of
UKIP under scrutiny we
will keep our options
OPEN! As we
mentioned some time ago
we have been almost two
decades on the campaign
trail to free our once
FREE INDEPENDENT NATION
STATE of ENGLAND from
the SATANIC EU and those
who have for centuries
have planned for an EVIL
ONE-WORLD
CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT
and EXTERMINATE! at
least 5 BILLION of the
WORLD'S POPULATION and
therefore if we are
right about those
mentioned above they are
not only TRAITORS to
their COUNTRY but also a
THREAT to WORLD PEACE.
However, of late,
matters have NOT! been
going well for the
ILLUMINATI as you will
observe BELOW.
Together
with
Churchill,
King
George
VI saved
our
nation;
he was a
Monarch
to be
proud
of. But
his
daughter
the
Queen is
the only
monarch
to have
broken
all her
coronation
oaths,
by
signing
these
six
treaties
that
abolish
our
common
law, the
British
Constitution,
the
British
and
English
nations,
and our
sovereignty.
She has
also
committed
treason,
together
with
co-signatories
Ted
Heath,
Margaret
Thatcher,
John
Major,
Tony
Blair
and
Gordon
Brown.
Realising
that
under
the five
Treason
Acts
they
should
already
be
hanging
by the
neck
until
dead,
Tony
Blair
and the
Queen
signed
the
Crime
and
Disorder
Act,
1998,
which
secretly
abolished
much of
the
crime of
treason
(s36.3)
and
reduced
the
penalty
to life
imprisonment
- they
didn't
tell the
MP's
what
they had
just
voted
for.
1.4
million
British
Servicemen
gave
their
lives
for our
independence.
The
Queen
has
thrown
their
sacrifices
away and
made
them
worthless.
At
no
physical
risk to
herself,
she
could
have
fulfilled
her oath
and duty
as a
constitutional
check
and
balance,
by
refusing
to sign
the six
treaties
until an
in/out
referendum
had been
held. In
the
unlikely
event
the vote
went
against
her, she
was even
more
unlikely
to lose
her
crown
(not her
life or
a limb),
and
would
keep her
£9
billion
plus
palaces
either
way.
Those
servicemen's
lives
would
still
have
meant
something.
But she
was
always
keen to
sign;
and said
in
advance
she
would
sign the
last
treaty.
Princes
Charles,
William
or Harry
can now
never be
King.
You
can't
have a
King
without
a
Kingdom:
they can
only be
princes
of a
region
(principality)
within
Europe.
King
Edward
8th was
forced
to
abdicate
because
he was
too
overt as
a German
Nazi
supporter.
Mrs
Simpson's
divorce
was
merely
the
excuse.
The
Royal
Family
is a
German
Family -
real
surname
Saxe-Coburg Gotha.
Windsor
is an
adopted
surname.
All four
of
Prince
Phillip's
sisters
married
high
ranking
German
Nazis.
After
they
lost the
war the
EU was
switched
from a
Nazi
basis to
a
communist
basis.
Between
the ages
of 12
and 22
Queen
Elisabeth's
political
and
constitutional
tutor
was Sir
Henry
Martin,
a Fabian
Communist.
It seems
clear
she was
well
trained
for her
subversion
and
treason.
Because
she
waves
and
smiles
at us
most are
fooled
into
thinking
she's
lovely;
in fact
the
Queen is
a member
of the
Illuminati,
a
Bilderberger,
head of
Freemasonry,
is
wholly
pro the
(German)
EU, and
has
abolished
this
nation
with
ruthless
determination.
It is so
obvious
she
cares
nothing
for
Britain
or the
British.
The
Queen's
aspirations
are not
ours;
she
clearly
serves a
much
darker
master;
the
faith
she
defends
cannot
be the
one we
think it
is. King
George
VI, the
one
recent
monarch
not
indoctrinated
with
Nazi or
Communist
philosophy,
must be
turning
over in
his
grave.
I
ask that
the law
be
enforced,
and the
Queen be
tried
for
treason
before
12
honest
people,
and not
by our
corrupt
judges.
And that
the
illegal
section
36.3
Crime
and
Disorder
Act be
declared
null and
void, so
that she
can hang
by the
neck
till
dead.
The new
EU
Hitler
doesn't
have to
get
elected
Its
worth
noting
that
Adolf
Hitler
first
had to
get
elected,
if on a
35%
minority
vote,
and then
get his
Enabling
Act
passed.
An EU
dictator
has no
such
problems.
Our EU
rulers
do not
submit
themselves
for
election
now. And
the
Queen
has
already
signed
the
Enabling
Act
(Civil
Contingencies
Act
2004).
The EU's
Hitler
will
have a
much
easier
rise to
power,
and will
have the
formerly
British
and
French
nuclear
weapons
from day
one.
Adolf
Hitler
killed
54
million
people.
The EU's
dictator
could
kill a
billion
at the
touch of
a
button,
with no
democratic
checks
and
balances
to
answer
to. How
could
any
aspiring
dictator
resist
the EU
opportunity?
For more
details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk
CANNOT+CLAIM+IMMUNITY+FROM+HIGH+TREASON+
BECAUSE+A+FIRST+MINISTER+SECRETLY
THE+SACRET+OATH+IS+TO+THE+PEOPLE+
TO+PROTECT+THEIR+ACCUSTOMED+LIBERTIES+
*
PATRIOT or
TRAITOR to HIS COUNTRY
'Others
shall sing the song, Others
shall right the wrong,- Finish what
I begin, All all I
fail of win. Hail to the
coming singers! Hail to the
brave light-bringers! Forward I
reach and above All that
they sing and dare. The airs of
heaven blow o'er me; A glory
shines before me Of what
mankind shall be'- Pure,
generous, brave and free, I feel the
earth move sunward, I join the
great march onward, And
take, by faith, while living, My freehold
of thanksgiving.-
WHITTIER MAY-2012
ADDED - MAY-2012
- HOME
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paypal accepts
credit cards. 
