Taking the reins of the Euribor

There was something noisome in the calculation of the euribor a few months ago. Indeed, the inquiry got started after a surfeit of winning bets by a few banks took place in the market. By some, it looked like a blatant manipulation, and with their complaints the subsequent injunction was fueled. Hitherto, nobody had even come to imagine that the system lied wizened in the hands of puissant bankers.

When the first voice of alarm was heard, it sounded like a strident din, annoying and rubbing up the wrong way whomever till then had behaved towards the most relevant international index in such an obsequious manner.

Times of change in the regulation are taking hold. When the ones who set up the rules hold also an inner interest in the way the bets end up, the propriety that should reign and impregnate each and every decision may suffer the risk of steadily fading out.

The European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) may stand out in the middle of the chaos. The Commission has recently announced that they have a keen penchant for that public body to be in charge of the calculation of the two most relevant indexes: euribor and libor.

Factious opinions that in the past lobbied for an independent institution to crunch the numbers when it came to those financial references, today glut the media with news that welcome the intentions of the Commission.

The incipient regulation is expected to be passed by the MPs given the expedient need of transparency in a market that, otherwise, could be hit again by a spate of international criticism - something that could bring enough uncertainty to shove countries with inchoate programs of recovery to the edge of collapse -

It seems the appropriate time to put aside smarmy opinions that laud the benefits of a self-regulated market, and, on the contrary, adjure the institutions to take the reins of sensitive affairs of magnitude that, in the wrong hands, could leave most of the middle class in the lurch while propitiating a golden retirement for a few people at the top.

e-quip and the market of second hand arms

The launch of e-quip ushers in a new paradigm for Government-to-Government trade of defense equipment within EU boundaries. The launch was announced by the EDA, European Defense Agency, after a narrow agreement between all Member Estates in order to develop an accurate tool to fit their needs.

E-quip works as an online platform where surplus defense equipment can be advertised with the goal of allowing countries to make contact. The EDA only helps to keep such a channel operating properly, while the final deal will be up to the two governments involved in the transaction.

Even though talking in terms of national defense, any kind of weapons commerce is likely to be viewed as a contentious issue. Apparently, the system has been introduced to improve the efficiency of the budget at a time when every party involved is trying to buckle down.

However, publishing surplus government weapons on the internet, even while taking all imaginable security measures, is seen by some as unnecessary comity between Member Estates. They argue that, should the exchange of information go awry and end up in the wrong hands, terrorist groups would wind up hoarding sensitive data that could be used against EU countries.

On the other hand, people keen to make the most of the new platform reply that after having perused all available reports on the matter, they are sure of the lack of foundation for such worries.

The third point of view gathers intemperate and sometimes desultory opinions from non-public organizations, always belligerent with the international weapons trade; not particularly concerned with the likelihood of information leaks, but rather with the reality of the business of war itself.

The benefits of cooperation ramify thanks to the internet, and defense tools are not an exception. However, every party involved should join the Commission to take the necessary steps in order to dodge uncertainty in the handling of such sensitive data.

Countries are going to face the same reality, second hand arms, but with more details available. Truculent opinions, both, in favor and against, are coming. Maybe, a mawkish love relationship when it comes to talking about tanks and fighter aircraft was just not on the cards.

Latvia and the Euro

The news that Latvia could join the EU common currency has stood out in the media in the middle of a sea of quotidian baleful headlines portending the breakup of the Euro.

Whether that news will bring something positive to the ex-soviet country, only time will tell, should their citizens plump for saying good bye to their dear Latvian lats.

Various and sundry opinions are found among Latvian citizens. On the one hand, some hold a deep yearning to join the currency and extol not only the economic boons that it would entail, but also the improvement in security on the world stage. On the other hand, others pose an immense allegiance to their currency by arguing that inflation would be the least eldritch consequence that might come.

Latvia lived seamy financing circumstances back in 2008 and 2009, and it was partially thanks to an EU injection that the economic countenance ponderously improved until depicting the healthy situation that they can boast of these days.

A profound appraisal of the current picture shows not only wholesome figures that match with the EU goals so as to be invited to join the euro club, but a quick gentrification throughout the main cities. Such achievements would help slake the governmental ambitions that were set up a few years ago, and that today, however, could be seen truncated by an internal saturnine opposition.

Looking at what had recently happened to a few euro countries could spread the feeling that becoming a euro member might involve the likelihood of suffering parlous finances in the short-term future. Nonetheless, having untangled a so vitiated plight at a record time may help people believe that it is possible to see the light at the end of the tunnel through austerity measures and appropriate governance under EU supervision.

Gnawed and inedible shibboleths are likely to be found along with spurious arguments, both in favour and against joining the EU currency. Latvian citizens have given proof that they were able to dodge the worst recent slump walking hand in hand with the EU. They will reach a sage choice whatever they decide.

EU budget to soothe ACP countries’ straitened circumstances

The EU has announced that they will earmark more than thirty thousand millions to combat extreme poverty during the years 2014 and 2020. They have reached such an agreement with the ACP countries, which stands for African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states. This group has existed since 2000, and the EU has traditionally ingratiated themselves with them.

The EU-ACP relation, which a few could refer to as a mawkish poem -when there is not an encomium from one side to the other, a panegyric from a third party may take place- could get a bit strained this time, after the goals behind the budget have been announced. The EU, although far from upbraiding the receivers of the help, has posed the necessity of a shrewder usage of the funds so as to make the best of it and properly target those sectors in dire need of a boost.

Campaigns fighting against poverty in every nook of the planet have always taken up great space inside the social and financial core of the union. A restive feeling has always been easily noticed that without more equality –not only within the EU borders but especially outside-not a glimpse of lasting peace and welfare could really be enjoyed.

Learning how to help without tampering with foreign rules and, more importantly, national feelings, could be compared to the art of legerdemain. It doesn't consist of blithely giving support by injecting funds and then taking a seat to wait and see. Although it could sound like a platitude, bearing in mind other people´s cultures and ways of thinking before lending a hand or, let alone, playing an active role in their societies, requires the skill to conflate, more than the strength or the superiority of simply imposing a change.

If one scratched deep enough, behind deals of collaboration like that one, an enormous amount of effort and ennui could be found. It's not only about finding out whom to help and figuring out what amount could make the change, but about which people to trust in, and what opinions and sentiments might be expected after and throughout so much travail.

Health discrimination in Member States?

The EU has nonplused the UK with its announcement that they are planning to sue the British government for its system of testing nationals from other Member States before deciding whether to grant them social benefits; these may include child benefits and jobseekers allowance, among others.

The EU decision comes after several friendly attempts, seeking to soothe the situation, failed and a spate of claims from people living in the UK had crammed the Ombudsman desk.

It resembles the issue in Spain regarding the EHI Cards (European Health Insurance Card), which some public hospitals seem to have been rejecting when the patients toting them are nationals from other Member States, as happened in at least one case.

While Spain has rushed to declare that they will look into the matter and even mulct the hospitals involved if any illegal activity is discovered (something that a few have regarded as a fulsome apology), the UK remains staunch in its view.

That the British Government has a penchant for keeping an independent fiscal and health system, is something that has traditionally been bandied about; but this time, their current standpoint is seen by a few as a sullen act of discrimination. Some real EU lovers have gone as far as to label their vision as an act of crude jingoism.

To some extent, the UK position could be seen as understandable. They argue that they are curtailing the likelihood of a splurge from Health Tourism: the fact that people suffering an unbearable paucity may feel allured by a relatively wealthy country where they could receive a sundry of health treatments that otherwise would be out of their reach.

The UK government thinks that the EU position is oblivious of the risk of generating a calling effect, and accused the Commission of nonchalantly giving recommendations that pursue unity, but without pondering the other side of the coin.

While a quest to provide primary services for European citizens-no matter the country they may be living in- could be seen as a cloying and futile dream, hampering the system without giving the chance of finding common ground may require too much sangfroid.