Energiewende and European green taxonomy : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls (5)

Nuclear and climate emergency, alert! Nuclear energy excluded from green taxonomy

European green taxonomy, what is it ?  

The European Commission is working on a green taxonomy, a kind of labeling designed to guide financial investments to the most appropriate sectors and activities to achieve Europe's climate targets, transition to a low-carbon economy and a sustainable development model. The objectives are: combating climate change, adapting to climate change, sustainable use and protecting water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, waste prevention and recycling, combating pollution (prevention and control), protecting healthy ecosystems.

It must also not create a significant negative impact on other objectives (in English, DNSH criterion, Do No Significant Harm), comply with minimum social standards (??? given the achievements of Social Europe, it is quite worrisome !)  and comply with technical selection criteria (Yes, please!)

What's the point ? According to its proponents, this taxonomy is indicative and non-binding, "it is not a standard, nor is it a mandatory list of activities in which to invest." Well, then what's the point? In fact, it can be expected to have an impact on the definition of sustainable finance and European subsidies.

Comment 1: the fight against climate change is only one of the criteria. However, as Brice Lalonde pointed out about the EPP (French multi-year energy programme), too many priorities mean no priorities!

Comment 2: I quote : "taxonomy will include activities in sectors that have a negative impact on the environment provided that they substantially reduce their negative impacts. The purpose of taxonomy is to encourage the transition to greener ways of operating, and not just activities already recognized as green, it makes sense to include sectors that need to improve their practices. »

Translation (and this will be the fourth time this week on the theme our dear German friends are starting to break our balls): green taxonomy can be used to subsidize German coal miners who will close their plants, but not for investments in French nuclear power (upgrading historical nuclear and new nuclear)!

Warning: nuclear energy excluded from green taxonomy !

Mea maxima culpa, I'm a little late on this blog! After the vote of MEPs last March 2019 excluding nuclear energy from green taxonomy. There is an open European consultation on green taxonomy where everyone can give their opinion; finally could until Monday 16 September, but perhaps the deadline was still extended: site

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/sustainable-finance-teg-taxonomy_en

N.b.  The association “ les Voix du Nucléaire”, which does a wonderful job, has provided an argument in English to answer this consultation: contact them on:

https://www.voix-du-nucleaire.org/contact-2/

You can find useful references on Tristan Kamin's threads (perfect, as usual):

https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1173521368937312256

Following consists of excerpts translated into French from the argument  des Voix du Nucléaire !

The context: "We started our public action a few weeks ago with an open letter to MEPs after their vote last March excluding nuclear energy from green taxonomy. We must now convince them to reconsider this decision. It is very strongly counterproductive when the fight against climate change should be the priority. If the European decision came into force, France would also be penalised in view of what nuclear power represents for its economy, its trade balance, its territorial development, its jobs and its energy independence. »

"The European Commission's (TEG) Group of Technical Experts has considered the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy of sustainable EU financing as a sustainable activity and investment. The TEG technical report published in June 2019 proposed not to use nuclear energy in the first version of taxonomy, pending further evaluation. The TEG recommends that further technical work be undertaken on the aspects of nuclear energy (Nb in particular DNSH - Do No Significant Harm - Do not cause significant damage]

Arguments :

Why nuclear power should not be excluded on the basis of the DNSM: All commercial nuclear activities in the EU (including spent fuel management) are already governed by EU and state legislation, regulations and procedures "Do No Harm" (DNSH).  On the other hand, the global scientific consensus concludes that the maintenance and expansion of nuclear energy is necessary to achieve sustainability goals, such as mitigating the effects of climate change.

General arguments in favour of nuclear power:

Nuclear power provides low-carbon, solid and affordable basic electricity that can withstand a decarbonised electricity mix in parallel with an expansion of renewable energies such as solar and wind in the European Union  Nuclear energy also has one of the lowest contributions to carbon generation throughout its life cycle - even less than solar and wind power per kWh (see IPCC report, "Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change"). Excluding nuclear from access to sustainable financing risks undermining climate change mitigation scenarios and roadmaps identified as achievable and necessary by some of most credible institutions and organizations and authorised countries, including the IPCC (2018), the IEA (2019) and the European Commission (2018). All conclude that nuclear energy should continue to play a role ...

The exclusion of nuclear energy from taxonomy risks making it even more difficult to mitigate climate change by reducing funding opportunities for nuclear projects and unnecessarily increasing the cost of capital nuclear energy projects.

In May 2019, the International Energy Agency highlighted the important role that both existing and new nuclear power play in the future transition to clean energy. In the UK, National Grid published its future energy scenarios in July 2019, including a "zero path" with a nuclear capacity of 18.6 GW by 2050. The opinion of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to the UK Government - which led to the adoption of the "UK zero target" for 2050 - played a crucial role in identifying the need for additional energy production of 30GW-60GW by the end of the year. 2050 in the CCC's  zero path scenario.

Although the taxonomy report takes into account the contribution of nuclear energy to the fight against climate change, nuclear is not included in the current list of sustainable activities and no framework for assessing inclusion nuclear power was not provided. The inclusion of nuclear energy as a source of sustainable low-carbon and sustainable production in August 2019 should be reviewed at the next phase of the EU taxonomy review with the participation of life cycle experts nuclear power.

The consideration of all forms of low-carbon electricity generation should be the same (technological neutrality). The TEG technical report does not take into account the relative qualities of the different low-carbon electricity generation options.

In particular, the treatment of nuclear production in the TEG technical report differs from that of other technologies in terms of waste disposal and management. All forms of low-carbon electricity generation generate waste and involve an element that cannot be considered 'ecologically sustainable'. The full life cycle of electricity generation must be taken into account and compared fairly for all technologies. According to OECD statistics, nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity. By comparison, polluting activities - such as steel and concrete manufacturing - are included in the taxonomy project, provided they operate at "unprecedented" levels. These activities were included in recognition of their crucial importance in achieving net zero and the desire to improve their environmental performance while at the same time respecting the most rigorous regulations.

The regulatory and governance requirements for the nuclear sector are subject to extremely stringent global standards for all aspects of the nuclear lifecycle, including waste management, safety. All commercial nuclear activities in the EU (including spent fuel management and final disposal) are already governed by DNSH (Do Not Significant Harm) standards in accordance with EU and Member State laws, regulations and procedures.

Need of a credible process/classification system:

"All forms of low-carbon production will be necessary for the clean energy transition and should therefore be subject to equal treatment under the 'no significant damage' (DNSH) procedure, and should therefore be treated included in taxonomy. It should be noted, for example, that photovoltaic solar panels and wind energy are not required to carry out an assessment of emissions over their life cycle, despite the lower emission threshold proposed by the European Union. It should also be noted that there is no waste metric in the "circular economy" criterion to which solar photovoltaic must comply, whereas there is a metric for wind energy. 

On the other hand, nuclear power is supposed to be excluded on the basis of waste, despite the fact that nuclear and radiological safety, through all elements of the uranium fuel cycle (including waste and decommissioning), is one of the most more regulated in the EU. EU waste management regulations set out clear requirements, which could be described as benchmarks or as the best appropriate standard (as has been done for other activities, such as aluminium and cement).

In the context of the search for "net zero", the exclusion of nuclear activities from taxonomy as a recognized and commercially viable form of low carbon production, undermines the credibility of taxonomy.

Other parts of the EU's financial mechanism recognise the need for nuclear power to achieve net zero: at the end of July, the EIB published a draft energy loan policy outlining how the EIB can help the EU cope with change climate change and the rapid abolition of fossil fuel loans. In this context, the EIB stated that: "Zero net emissions will involve a diversified portfolio of technologies, including renewable energy, but also nuclear, carbon capture and storage, the conversion of excess energy into a other energy vector, as well as bioenergy, storage and digital technologies. In this document, the EIB further states that in addition to nuclear power generation, the full nuclear fuel cycle, decommissioning and waste management are eligible as projects that meet the bank's criteria.

In addition, the European Commission is obliged to facilitate investments in the development of nuclear energy in accordance with Article 2 of the Euratom Treaty. It is essential that all regions of the EU are aligned on the safest path to net zero. This will further damage the credibility of taxonomy in the financial community if some organizations recognize the ecological nature of nuclear power, and others do not!

By creating a different set of requirements for one activity (nuclear) compared to the others, the TEG compromises its own integrity and credibility as a group of technical experts. By requiring long-term empirical evidence for nuclear waste depots, although no other evidence is required from any other sector or industry, TEG risks undermining the so-called technological neutrality of taxonomy. Significant inconsistencies in the application of the EU's principle of equal treatment in relation to the significant non-injury criterion (DNSH) in August 2019 may undermine the confidence of financiers that the definition of sustainable activity has been made rigorously, robustly and objectively.

This unequal treatment and the current exclusion of nuclear power (despite its critical role in achieving net zero emissions) could damage the reputation and credibility of taxonomy and TEG, which could limit the adoption of taxonomy and the EU's green obligation by the wider financial community.

The EU's Sustainable Financing Initiative is an important development that could significantly increase the amount of financial capital spent on sustainable activities. However, for this benefit to materialize, it is important that the financial community largely adopts the EU taxonomy and the European standard on green bonds, which requires financiers to be assured that the definition of an activity sustainable development is developed rigorously and objectively.

In the context of low-carbon electricity generation, this requires a technologically neutral approach and consistent application of DNSH criteria across low-carbon technologies. However, there are clear inconsistencies in the application of the EU's principle of equal treatment in relation to the DNSH criteria. This unequal treatment of all economic activities and the current exclusion of nuclear power (despite its critical role in achieving zero net emissions) damage the reputation and credibility of taxonomy and TEG, which may limit the adoption of Taxonomy as the European standard on the green bonds of the financial community.

Taxonomy defines sustainable criteria for multiple activities in different sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, transport) based on the carbon intensity of electricity consumed in the course of their activities. This approach is inconsistent with the approach applied to the definition of sustainable activities in the electricity generation sector, where nuclear power is excluded although it is definitively (and recognized by the taxonomy project) at low Carbon.

Potential impact on hydrogen-based and electrointensive technologies.

The TEG report states (pages 50, 186 and 205 to 208) that future decarbonization projects involving (i) the use of hydrogen or (ii) the manufacture of hydrogen, will only be considered "sustainable" in relation to taxonomy if hydrogen is produced at from electricity from renewable sources.  As a result, some industries (such as aluminum, iron and steel manufacturing in countries such as France) may not be able to finance some of their decarbonisation efforts by referring to taxonomy given their heavy dependence on nuclear energy! !

In addition, the exclusion of nuclear from taxonomy risks undermining confidence that electrification in all sectors will be considered sustainable in the future …

The crucial role that electrification plays in achieving net zero means that it is vitally important that all low-carbon production is considered sustainable, and that nuclear power contributes significantly to production. low-carbon electricity today and in the future.

Energiewende : Our dear German friends are starting to seriously break our balls (4)

Ursula von der Leyen's mission letter to European Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson

« Your mission: I would like to entrust you with the role of Energy Commissioner. It is of paramount importance that Europeans have access to affordable, safe, reliable and clean energy.   Regional interconnectivity, a more efficient market for energy, research and innovation are essential to achieving these goals. To become the world's first climate-neutral continent, Europe needs to reduce its emissions faster and faster and by at least 50% by 2030. Given that energy production and use account for 75% of EU emissions, energy will have a central role to play in the Eu Green Agreement.

Safe, secure and sustainable energy: Building on the success of the Energy Union (???), you will focus on developing a properly functioning, integrated, interconnected and functioning European energy market. This will help keep prices low for consumers (???), increase the use of clean energy and make energy supply more reliable and secure. I want you to focus on the rapid implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation. With this in mind, you should work closely with Member States to define their national energy and climate plans. Given the increased ambition of the European Green Agreement, you should assess the need to review the legislation.

You will make sure that Europe follows the principle of energy efficiency first. In this context, you should consider how Europe can further improve the energy performance of buildings and speed up renovation rates.

To accelerate the deployment of clean energy throughout the economy, you should promote an energy system largely based on renewable energy, with increased interconnectivity and improved energy storage. You should consider how to facilitate the intelligent integration of the electricity, heating, transport and industry sectors.

You will need to help establish the right signals and financial incentives to increase investment in clean energy, including through the new Investment Plan for Sustainable Europe. We also need to invest in the missing infrastructure of our energy system. This should help Europe achieve its goal of electrical interconnection and develop cross-border cooperation on renewable energy facilities and networks. You must support all regional cooperation efforts to improve integrated markets. »

Comment: Here’s again the dream of the European copper plate. Except that on several occasions, including in January 2018, a minor problem in Kosovo almost led to a general European blackout, the frequency of the French and European electricity system having dropped well below 50 Hz. Except that to protect themselves from the gigantic and uncontrollable variations of German wind power, Czechs and Polish are forced to set up transformers isolating their network. Our dear German friends should stop saying and doing anything with their Energiewende.

« Gas will have a role to play in the transition to a carbon-neutral economy, including carbon capture and storage. You will assess how sources of supply can be diversified at competitive prices, particularly by taking full advantage of the potential of affordable liquefied natural gas.»

Comment: 1) it is German policy (and more over politics) that aims to significantly increase the share of gas, not European policy, not French policy! By replacing their nuclear power with gas, the German are increasing carbon emissions, are replacing (slower!) their coal with gas, they will always have about ten times higher carbon emissions than France by electric KWh and give up ahead of hand to all their climate commitments. It's a crime!

2) Gas leads to an increased and dangerous dependence of the European Community on Russia and Ukraine in particular

3) This is in complete contradiction with the previous Commission and Commissioner Miguel Arias Caete who said : "In 2050 we will have completely decarbonised the European Union. The role of gas will not be the same."  and had even delivered a clear message to the gas industry: "We will soon not know what to do with your infrastructures"

« You will need to contribute to the design of the new carbon tax at the border, as well as to the revision of the Energy Tax Directive to ensure that it is in line with our neutral climate commitments. The EU is the world's largest energy importer, but about 85% of our imports are currently paid in dollars. As part of the wider efforts to increase the international role of the euro, I want you to look at ways to significantly increase the use of the euro in energy markets. »

Comment: complete failure so far and no hope of improving the situation. Even in the case of the purely American and illegal embargo against Iran, Europe was unable (and moreover did not want, in order not to penalize German car exports to the USA) to set up a system of exchange not going through the dollar.

"You will focus on improving nuclear safety and safeguards across Europe and continue the ongoing nuclear decommissioning.  We should make full use of treaty clauses that allow energy proposals to be adopted by codecision and qualified majority voting»

Comment: About nuclear energy, German position is absurd technically, economically, ecologically.

And reminder: the choice of the energy mix depends on the States, not the Commission! Paws down, Ursula! Verstand!)

"Empowering people and regions : People and regions will contribute to the transition to a cleaner, more efficient energy system. At the same time, we must support those most affected and exposed by the transformations, making sure that we leave no one behind.   I want you to focus on putting consumers at the heart of our energy system, including the full implementation of the revised design of the electricity market. »

Comment: so we continue full speed on the liberalisation of the electricity market, though experiences in California and England have shown it is catastrophic, and that is responsible in Europe for the soaring prices of electricity. Because these pseudo liberalisation do not make appear new electricity producers appear (too expensive, too risky), but fatten middlemen and profiteers, those in France who gobble on the ARENH (nuclear electricity that EDF is forced by European guidelines to sell them below the market price)

« You will need to seek to empower citizens and cooperatives to play an increased role in the use of renewable energy through self-consumption. »

Comment: This is the most effective way to de-optimize a system, and destroy equalization and equal tariffs, and throw away public service obligations

« You must contribute to the design and implementation of the new Fair Transition Fund, including ensuring that it provides targeted support to industrial regions, energy-intensive coal and energy isolates.  More than 50 million European households cannot afford to heat their homes properly. You should use the Energy Poverty Observatory to help Member States identify the areas that need support the most. As a general rule, you will work under the direction of the Executive Vice-President for the European Green Agreement. The Energy Directorate will support you in your work. »

Comment: How weird, how strange, the more ENR you inject into the power production, the higher the price. (actually no, it’s not strange, it is perfectly logic

4 cf. https://vivrelarecherche.blogspot.com/2019/07/le-grand-malefice-pourquoi-plus-il-y-de.html)

The only abundant energy, economical, controllable, decarbonized, non-polluting, apart from hydraulics whose resources are limited, is the nuclear energy that you, German, want to decrease, or even banish!

« The way forward. The mission described above is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. There will undoubtedly be other opportunities and challenges over the next five years. On all of these issues, I would ask you to work closely with me and other members of the College. Once there is more clarity, we should be prepared to pave the way for an ambitious and strategic partnership with the United Kingdom. I look forward to working closely together on what is an exciting and testing period for our Commission. You can of course count on my full personal and political support before your hearing in the European Parliament and throughout our mandate.  Ursula von der Leyen"

Kadri Simson :

Kadri Simson, born on 22 January 1977 in Tartu, is an Estonian politician and member of the Centre Party (EK). She is Minister of Economic Affairs and Infrastructure from November 23, 2016 to April 29, 2019. It should be noted that during the Estonian Presidency of the Union (December 2017), it supported very favourable positrons for Germany, proposing to keep until 2035 the possibility of using coal-fired power plants for capacity mechanisms (production of last resort)

General comment: 

Germany is experiencing a complete failure with its Energiewende,- despite its 29,000 wind turbines, despite total support for renewable energy in Germany which reached 680 billion euros, Germany has not decreased by one iota its carbon emissions. It is a triple climatic, ecological (coal until 2035) and bloody economic failure. By leaving nuclear power (in 2020, what's more, before the coal shutdown!), the Germans are giving up on fulfilling their climate commitments!

Aware of this failure of the Energiewende, our dear German ex-friends are determined to protect their interests by tackling in every way possible the competitive advantages of those who do not want to make their mistakes, and in particular France with its nuclear power.  

To be clear, ganz klar, the Mission Letter from the Energy Commissioner literally means this: Germany declares an economic war on France. We're going to have to take note of that. For my part, I believe that I will refrain as much as possible from all contacts with German organizations, any purchase of goods or services of German companies..

Dear German friends (2) a problematic relationship

A few things we do not bear anymore

The previous blog was intended to resume the lessons of french last elections, namely that the European Union and the Euro are likely to explode in the absence of radical change in European policy, if our German friends do not cease to want a Europe that is a Bigger Germany, to dominate it, to run it their way.. 

Let’s just compare  Dear Mutti, a lowbrow grocer, to those great German Statesmen, the two Helmut Kohl, recently deceased, and Schmidt!

A few examples of what went wrong

The Greek crisis: the subprime crisis (Hey, by the way, what about Deutsche Bank) has turned into the debt crisis of states, hitting heavily the European weak link that was Greece. Indeed, the systematic cheating of the public accounts in Greece (with the complicity of whom?), the inexistence of  a state worthy of the name in Greece, that  could not last and was threatening the European area – explosion was possible. Okay, had to hit fast and hard, and you did it.

But, as good protestant, you could grant no absolution and had to punish the sinner until he cries tears of blood. The  best evidence of this will to punish is that it led to decisions that were detrimental, not only for Grece, but for all of Europe. Your delays, your concerns in the implementation of the European stability mechanism, in the buying of national  state debts by the Central Bank have cost billions. Today, even while the IMF insists on the necessary cancellation of part of the Greek debt, you ‘re still delaying this measure, indispensable to a dying Greece... for the cause of German elections. It's shameful, it is contrary to the purpose – for god sake, how the Greeks could rebuild a State in those conditions?

Deficits: of course, a current account deficit, unreasonable and renewed year after year, is not tolerable, nor sustainable for a State. But finally, intra European trade is such that the deficit of your partners contributes heavily to the surplus which you are so proud of. In the end, if we are a European Community, the deficit of these European countries towards Germany ihas no more importance than that of Wyoming towards California, right? It's across Europe that we must judge the deficit-Are we a community or not ?

And then, in times of crisis and moreover, when  interest rates are at their lowest, deficit  is better than recession, right?

Finally, there are also political considerations. Can you remember ? , The reunification of Germany with parity between East and West marks was economically wrong, but politically inevitable. Kohl did it, we understood it, a good  German reunification was necessary for Europe And, due to convergence towards euro, we had to endure interest rates greater than we might have had.  Instead of defending foot to foot your immediate interests., you should think of political agenda. Kohl and Schmitt did !

Abandon of nuclear power, for purely demagogic reasons, with the reactivation of coal or even lignite plants: this  was a crime against the economy (a more expensive energy), against global warming, against public health (thanks for the episodes of pollution). You have done much worse than this poor Trump, with its coal mines in Wyoming which no sound industrialist would  operate ! You did much worse, but no one seems to notice. Bravo ! Let’s agonize Trump !

Immigration : one day, you encouraged all refugees to immigrate and to come to Germany. Orban then decided to let all migrants who were piling up in the Hungarian stations, oddly, you were not pleased at all. Then you wanted to decide which country will host refugees and how many ( who gave you the power to do this ?).  Finally, sheepishly, you entered into an agreement of sequestering refugees with the Turkish neo-sultan, and now we depend on him, threatening to open the valves whenever he dislikes something (an article, a song, a sermon). Brilliant !

But who gave you a mandate to lead all  European Nations immigration policy? We understand that your catastrophic demography (by the way, why in a  so well governed country?)  incites you to encourage immigration, but this isn't the choice of everyone.

Your policy of competitiveness by low cost: the average hourly wage in France and Germany is about the same. But inequalities are much stronger in Germany. While some high technology sectors remained protected, in many others,  you ‘ve given up your strong industrial traditions for a policy of low quality, low wages. You have 22.5% of “working poors” against 8.8% in France (21.3% in England, 3.8% in Belgium). Your policy has not done miracles, it has simply turned unemployed into poor workers. You have even invented reverse auction -  work assignments at least asking. This is a policy that values work! You have completely unbalanced markets, french pork producers facing your giant abattoirs populated by overexploited Polish workers know something about.

This policy of competitiveness by cost, it's really the reverse of a model who could rally the majority of Europeans, the Rhine Capitalism Model- it’s the opposite of what made the reputation of your industry. You also had to cheat, and as you don't do things by halves, it gives Volkswagen. Focusing on competitiveness by cost instead of innovation, you  are now scandalized to see the Chinese taking the jewels of your industry, your robot manufacturers  and you want to limit their investments. But now, they are the  real industrialists!

And this policy of social crush,  of competitiveness by cost, and especially wage costs, you want to impose it on all over Europe !

And let’s speak of your  bulldozer way, the way you perverted the European Institutions, to impose your interests. Thus, for the catastrophic "liberalization" of the electricity market, while EDF was exploding, you managed to sell the idea that there was no monopoly in Germany, since there was a public distributor by Länder. Bravo! And it's just a small example.

No, that cannot and will not last for long !  It's five to midnight, five years before the explosion of the Euro and the European Community. You really have to  change, quickly and deeply. To change of Merkel and of policy

Good  election year !

Dear German friends (1) a problematic relationship

A problematic relationship

I quite like Germany, I like your serious and your relaxation, I appreciate your cities and your culture - I was still in Berlin a few days ago. One thing amused me: your newspapers apparently had some trouble to translate "La France insoumise" , they left in quotes, not translated, and explaining that insoumise  was something like rebel, but not quite. This concept, you obviously have some problems with !

Well, problems,  there are many others. You rejoice the victory of Emmanuel Macron, thinking that he will be a loyal liberal support of your Europe. Do not rejoice too quickly. Victory of Emmanuel Macron was not a victory for supporting his program, it was a victory of fear, fear in the first round of left-wing voters who feared a second round Le Pen Fillon, and voters on the right that were alarmed with a second round Mélenchon Le Pen; and the second round, the same. - but with a third of voters ready to leave the Euro and the European Community. Logically, the French have given their President the means to govern; but the record abstention shows clearly that there is no majority, no agreement to realize this type of reforms you like so much and urge us to make, such as the demolition of the labour code.

Don't be fooled. A large part of the french people voted against the Euro and the European Community; It is not that they are ready to leave  with a light heart ; even, I am afraid that , if asked the question, they would say that's not so much leave the European institutions they would like, but to evict you, as you have once again managed to be unbearable . And as for those who voted Macron, don't think they appreciate you a lot more -  a number of them have done so because they believe or hope that he will finally adopt a firmer attitude towards you.

Still, I don't think I am anti-German. My name may let think that I belong more to the Mediterranean sphere, but, by the way, I have at least as much Alsatian blood and family as southern. And for me, but not just  for me, I think it's five to midnight, that these really are the last five years that we give us and you to change radically the European policy.

 Otherwise, bye, bye Euro and European Community, or what will remain of it.  Because it will be better all destroy and leave it to the next generation to rebuild on a better basis.

One of your great statesmen just died. Helmut Kohl (and Helmut Schmitt before him) had a true political vision, they really make Europe  progress- and sometimes against the advice of economists. They knew, they had experienced it in their flesh, that politics has its own domain and  cannot be reduced to economy. They knew the importance of building a Europe where European Nations would live in harmony, in good society, in equality and would increasingly share a common future. 

What a contrast with Angela Merkel, with your Mutti, a lowbrow grocer, which sees Europe as a bigger Germany, defending, oh how effectively, German interests ; Which is normal since you are the best of the Europeans, those that everyone should imitate, oh how, confident and dominating are you again.  Angela Merkel has managed that, again, you are hated, and if European construction stops, your historical responsibility will be overwhelming.

It also seems to me that it is she who killed Helmut Kohl politically, and that he did not think much of her.

What’s wrong? Some answers in  next blog.

A clue. I've been among those who believed in the necessity of the Euro for political reasons, because I couldn't stand this apostrophe from the  Nixon Treasury minister : "the dollar is our currency, but it’s your problem." 

Well, you tell us now :  "euromarck is our currency, but it’s your problem."

It won't do!