I'm not one for conspiracy theories but...

Today the European Commission will announce a 6.8% increase in budget - equivalent to €138 billion extra.

This is truly extraordinary when the majority of member states (25 out of 27, excluding the Czech Repubic and the UK who refused to sign up to the latest 'non-EU treaty' financial pact) are under mandate to enforce austerity measures imposed by Brussels. How then can the EU defend such an enormous hike in its own budget?

The swingeing austerity measures laid out by Brussels are crippling European economies, not saving them, with the constant cutting and adherence to the single currency project proving disastrous for the EU and global economy as a whole.

Today the ONS announced that the British economy shrunk over the last two quarters, plunging us back into recession, with the ongoing Eurozone crisis to blame.

Add to that the news that the UK will pay another £10 billion to the IMF ["It won't prop up the single currency, honest!"] and you've got to begin to wonder, what is going on?

It would appear that Brussels are the very deliberate architects of economic freefall in Europe. 

It cannot be simply a mistake that the financial crisis is continuing. Perhaps by creating financial disaster in Europe, while copious amounts of money fill up the EU coffers,  fiscal control is able to be diverted to the EU. Where there's money, there's power.

At one point commentators suggested the Eurozone crisis could spell the end for the EU. Far from it. 

If anything, the incredible transfer of power and money to Brussels over recent years as the crisis has taken hold has actually increased the dependence of the majority of member states upon the European Union and its associate bodies, such as the European Central Bank, European Investment Bank and so forth.

Which brings me on to the IMF.

It is shocking to witness the supposedly independent International Monetary Fund supporting the EU programme.

I do not only mean the financial impetus, including the recent call for an extra $430bn (£247bn), to which British taxpayers will contribute an extra £10 billion. 

There is the very tricky matter of the IMF, the EU and the ECB, forming a so-called Troika to effectively run the economies of disaster stricken member states. 

Part of the rules and regulations laid down by the Troika include setting up separate accounts for incoming bail out funds to ensure money is used only to save the Euro through debt repayment and is not spent structurally, in effect, helping the suffering population by a real injection of cash into the national economy.

What we are witnessing is mass unemployment spreading across Europe and a number of economies falling apart, led by an institution designed to "promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty."

Instead of actually providing financial aid to Greece, Italy, Portugal and so on, the IMF is instead driving funding into bank accounts set up to support the Euro, and thus EU ideology in Europe, while co-authoring regulations which perpetuate the ongoing crisis.

Even the USA has now refused to contribute any more to the IMF, saying they no longer supported the failing efforts to sustain the Eurozone.

What on earth is going on?

It is increasingly apparent that the IMF, led by the former French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde is by no means independent. Of course Lagarde came in after the rather inglorious departure of Dominique Strauss Kahn. It is by no means implausible that his downfall and thus removal from power was all too easy to set up, given the man's penchant for promiscuity. Perhaps that is one conspiracy theory too many - but there are many out there who claim that what happened in that New York hotel room was a deliberate trap.  

Strauss Kahn may just have been a dirty dog who met his inevitable end. Or perhaps he needed to be removed in order to parachute in Lagarde, who would get the job done.

Despite calls from across the global financial sector to dismantle the single currency, instead the IMF have come out and warned against any member state leaving the Euro. It is interesting to point out that France is next in line to enter economic turmoil if the single currency crisis is not tempered. Perhaps the IMF and Christine Lagarde want to evade French financial freefall. But if that was the case, why is the IMF authoring and imposing the austerity measures that are keeping the crisis alive?

It is interesting that while the UK Government publicly vetoed the pact for financial regulation (again, not an EU treaty-despite the 'pact' involving the European Commission, 25 member states, the ECB...- as an EU treaty would have meant referenda across the continent, whose results would likely have seen the democratic obstruction of the pact's political intentions evident to the world stage). However the UK have recently agreed to pay an extra £10 billion to the IMF while our own economy has fallen back into recession, with the single currency to blame for contraction over the last two quarters.

Perhaps my imagination is too creative.

Has Britain, behind closed doors, agreed to support the federal unification of Europe by continuing to fund the bizarre operation being carried out by the EU and the IMF - as long as we can remain on the outskirts?

After all, the money being poured into the Eurozone from the IMF is helping Brussels to actuate these intentions, by breaking down the economies of  member states through destructive austerity measures, and then sweeping to their rescue by promising bail outs in return for  fiscal control by the EU and its related bodies. 

The Eurozone financial crisis is, in effect, enabling the final push for federalism to be made.

Of course in order to achieve this, Brussels needs money to uphold bogus bail outs in exchange for obeisance to their own fiscal mandate. Thus they contrinue to increase the EU budget, but that would not be enough.Brussels needs the IMF to extract money from the global economy to support the operation. After all, financially ruining economies in order to swoop in and take control by offering a golden handshake is an expensive business. So how is the IMF managing to continually pass the collection plate and get other countries to pour money in? Well the ongoing Eurozone crisis is not only a threat to the member states involved. In this hugely interlinked global marketplace, ongoing crisis in the Eurozone is a threat to economies across the world. Perhaps other countries are party to some sort of plan - or perhaps they simply have no choice, as a financial collapse in Europe would mean a heavy toll upon many countries' economic security. Now America has managed to get back on its feet, incidentally by doing the direct opposite of what is being carried out in Europe by providing stimulus rather than imposing austerity, they no longer want to be a part of what is going on in Europe. Although Obama has always championed a more deeply integrated EU, so it may just be that America is turning a blind eye but is unwilling to co-finance the operation any more.

I am sure many readers will be thinking 'what on earth is he on about?'

I am merely playing Devil's advocate -  asking the unanswered questions.

Why is the world allowing this mess to continue?

How is what the EU and IMF are doing not being condemned by the international community - and by this I mean what is overtly taking place, not my conspiratorial postulations.

The formation and fiscal controls of the Troika are perpetuating economic crisis, while 25,000 people in Greece are begging for food, yet no one on the world stage is saying anything.

Europe is not the developing world. It is not an impoverished continent with (manifestly) corrupt governance and (manifestly) tyrannical rule. It is a first world group of countries who should by now be well in the clear after the credit crunch that hit almost five years ago.

This furore has gone beyond a catastrophic mess and incompetent governance.

It is now so absurd that there is a distinct smell of conspiracy about it.

The Rights of Human Rights and the Wrongs of Government

Tomorrow and Friday the Council of Europe, representing 47 member states and over 800 million citizens, will meet in Brighton to discuss reforming the figure head institution of the European Court of Human Rights. At the helm of the discussion is Britain, who currently chairs the Council of Europe, although rumour has it that David Cameron himself will not be attending.

Surprising? Perhaps not so. A series of embarrassing and unpopular defeats for the Government by the ECHR, such as the ban on deporting Abu Qatada to Jordan, has led to widespread media outcry over the supremacy of European law over British law. Since the ECHR was established in 1959, 61 per cent of judgments have gone against the UK government.

David Cameron has often come out and publicly condemned decisions made in the Strasbourg court, and following pressure from his own backbenchers, has promised to dilute the powers of the European Convention on Human Rights over the domestic court system. Earlier this year, he stated that Strasbourg must not "undermine its own reputation" by overruling national courts and has put forward reforms including restoring powers to national courts, which will be discussed at the summit in Brighton this week.

However rumour has it that the latest draft of the planned reforms has massively watered down British suggestions, before the summit has even commenced.

The main thrust of the British authored reform proposals involve a change in the synergy between national law courts and the ECHR.

One proposal suggests Strasbourg should rarely rule over cases which have already journeyed through the entire domestic court process. Already, this demand has been effectively erased.

Instead the UK Government proposed a more advisory role for the ECHR, witht he jutification that this would reduce the need for certain cases to be taken to Strasbourg. Instead it would come under an agreement that the “interaction between the court and national authorities could be strengthened” suggesting closer adherence to the Convention in British law.

The suggestion was made to supposedly reduce the backlog of cases at the ECHR, where more than 160,000 cases are yet to be tried. In its first forty years, only 45,000 cases were presented to the ECHR, compared to the 61,300 the court was asked to consider in 2010 alone.

The British suggestion, which essentially is designed to allow individual states to some extent ignore court rulings and adopt their own positions, comes in the wake of the case of killer John Hirst, where the UK blanket ban on prisoners voting was ruled by the ECHR to be unlawful. The matter reached the Houses of Parliament where MPs voted by 234 to 22 in favour of defying the ECHR judgment and the issue was kicked into the long grass.

David Cameron’s stance is, one imagines, partially designed to make sure this issue, and other controversial media spinners, are kept out of the public eye and are thus non problematic for the Government. However fears that compensation claims of UK prisoners appealing to the ECHR could run into millions has forced the Government to reopen this thorny issue.

The biggest issue faced by both the UK Government and the ECHR is the perception of an existing democratic deficit, whereby unelected judges have primacy over elected decision makers.

Most people often make the mistake of conflating the European Court of Human Rights with the EU. The two are separate institutions. Yet all new signatories to the EU must sign up to the ECHR before accession. As an original signatory, the UK Government’s membership of both is in many respects like being a fully paid up member of two separate clubs.

Despite this, successive Governments have always denied calls of leaving the ECHR, although confusing parallel legislation, such as the proposal to create a British Bill of Rights, to subsume the Convention and create a more idiomatic text, has been recently debated.

The rights set out in the ECHR itself have not been debated. The sticking point has been over how those rights are adjudicated, the main thrust of this week’s proposed reforms, and how rights are counterbalanced and interpreted and ultimately, by whom. Most often trials have to conduct a sort of titration of juxtaposed human rights, leading to conflicts of opinion between judges and legislators. What perhaps is lacking is a democratic override, whereby Parliamentary sovereignty is at the top of the food chain, or indeed the UK Supreme Court. As such assurances have been made that a British Bill of Rights would be “ECHR plus” in order to subsume the extant legislation to which Britain agreed when it signed up to the Convention into the newly drafted Bill.

Currently the House of Commons is obliged to accept Strasbourg’s rulings, however unpopular the conclusions. Yet what is unlikely to happen would be a shift of supremacy to the Commons, whereby all unpopular rulings could be overturned. What the British Government are trying to bargain for instead this week is a shift in priority.

Yet what is perhaps the most interesting aspect in this narrative is the potential sting in the tail that could emanate from Brussels.

This week, Parliament, also in Strasbourg, are debating the EU accession to the ECHR. Despite new signatories having to sign up to the convention, the EU itself is not a fully fledged member. Technical anomalies have thus far postponed the full accession of the EU tot he ECHR, which amounts to judicial positioning rather than the application of European law into EU courts.

What is interesting, essentially, is this:

Currently the UK could conceivably opt out of the ECHR. However if the EU signs up in its own right, the only way out for the UK would be by leaving the EU. This opens the door for future debate on the equilibrium between national sovereignty and ECHR supremacy to be both intruded upon by Brussels, and essentially slammed shut.

No wonder David Cameron is trying to push through these reforms. It may well be the UK’s very last chance.

Enough is Enough

The tragedy unfolding in Greece has escalated to such a stage now that I am increasingly concerned by pan-European complicity in the austerity measures planned to save the Euro - a currency nobody wanted - which are putting so many human lives at stake.

I have talked about Greece repeatedly in this blog. It's been hard not to. It has after all been the focal point of European news for over a year.

But today's news about the suicide of a 77 year old retired chemist outside Parliament in Athens last night has to be talked about. In fact, it has to be shouted and screamed about.

This high profile case caught the public's attention and sparked further rioting in the country's capital. Petrol bombs were hurled at police and tear gas fired back.

The carefully written note was without doubt designed to strike a chord with society. In many people's eyes, the man unofficially named by the Greek press as Dimitris Christoulas, is a martyr.

The retired chemist, with a wife and a daughter, had sold his pharmacy in 1994.

He shot himself in Syntagma Square in the city centre just before 09:00. His note accused the government of cutting his pension to such an extent that life had become unbearable.

It read

"The government has annihilated all traces for my survival, which was based on a very dignified pension that I alone paid for 35 years with no help from the state.

"And since my advanced age does not allow me a way of dynamically reacting... I see no other solution than this dignified end to my life, so I don't find myself fishing through garbage cans for my sustenance."

Hundreds of demonstrators turned out onto the streets outside Parliament on Wednesday evening, pinning notes to trees that read "Enough is enough" and "Who will be the next victim?"

Greece used to have the lowest suicide rate in Europe. In recent months it has soared, in Athens alone it has risen by 25%. The face of the country has changed. Shop fronts are closed up, homeless people are more evident, there's a sense of discord hanging in the air.

Early elections due in just over a month could bring about interesting results. The question is whether the results will be quashed by Brussels if they do not serve up on a platter an ideal puppet for the European Commission to manipulate in order to save their beloved single currency.

The situation in Greece is no longer about the Euro. It is no longer about free trade and rules on bendy bananas and protecting post war Europe through solidarity. It is about real people who cannot work, cannot live and cannot eat.

Almost a third of Greeks are at risk of poverty, with one in five of those unable to afford meat every other day.

Suicides increased by 18% in 2010 from the previous year, according to Reuters.

When the price to pay for a political ideology is people's lives - then the international community has a duty to stand up and say

enough is enough

The Young Ones

What sort of country are we leaving for our children?

What sort of society, what sort of culture, what sort of world will they inherit?

It's a question that is often asked.
But perhaps we should be questioning what sort of children are we leaving for our world?

With some of the worst youth unemployment figures in the developed world, Europe is home to a disengaged, disenchanted and disenfranchised generation who will soon be expected to take over the mantles of their nations.

Figures for youth unemployment are largely double the incidence of adult unemployment in many European countries. The economic slowdown is hitting the young the hardest, but we are yet to truly see the scars that will be left behind. Those will only become apparent in around a decade or so.

While Generation X, the post war baby boomers, may be held accountable for the strain on economies brought by capitalism, credit and unsecured loans, Generation Y have managed to squeeze through and are largely upcoming professionals who have completed education and are well on their way to careers. It's the next generation down, dubbed Generation Z. that we should perhaps be worrying about.

There is an increasing incidence of NEETs in Generation Z - Not in Education, Employment or Training. A lost generation who are likely to be living at home, and as such are delayed in becoming fully engaged young adults who are taking an active role in society. Together with their peers, they look at everyone else around them and perceive a world that is forn the most part inaccessible to them. They feel they must carry the burden of the mistakes of their elders on their shoulders, while they are stripped of responsibility, indepence and pride.

Youth unemployment is largely the product of structural factors, where there is simply no capacity to accomodate those entering into the jobs market for the first time in the system. This is then exacerbated by the sort of austerity measures we are seeing in Southern Europe that has put youth unemployment in Spain higher than in Greece, with both running over fifty per cent for 18 to 24 year olds.

Youth unemployment across the Eurozone as a whole was 21.6 percent in February, according to the European Union's statistics office, Eurostat. That accounts for hundreds of thousands of unexploited, underused and wasted capable people who are not only contributing to society, but are starting to feel like society is not contributing anything for them.

Youth unemployment is often the first symptom of a failing economy. Service industries are hit by the reduction in available spending money and the perceived threat of joblessness, causing people to stop going out and buying, or eating in restaurants. It is well noted that service industries are one of the biggest employers for this sector of the demographic. How many of us toiled in pubs and restaurants, or shops, during our youth? Yet with so many places affected by the recession closing or having to cut back significantly, the first area affected is often staff.

Meanwhile, job cuts in other areas are seeing better qualified, better equipped, and perhaps more motivated members of Generation X and Y taking up jobs that Zedders would otherwise have access too.

On top of that, large amounts of immigration, both EU and non-EU, is providing cheaper employment for already struggling businesses who are more likely to be tempted to take on a foreigner for less money.

Youth unemployment is not just about joblessness. Various studies have shown clear links between youth unemployment and antisocial behavior, alcoholism, mental and physical illnesses and suicide. Meanwhile a large number of the protestors involved in the riots that have spread across Europe and are likely to continue and escalate well into the summer, are unemployed youths who feel disconnected from society as a whole. You only have to look at pictures from the London riots and the most recent scenes in Barcelona to see the majority of people who took to the streets feeling that their voices were not being heard, came from the younger generations who feel they are unfairly having to bear the brunt of matters they could not possibly have contributed to.

Not only that, but economists have also argued that youth unemployment creates a scarring effect that reduces the capacity to earn throughout a person's life compared with someone who did not suffer long term unemployment at an early age. Therefore the majority of those young people stuck in an unemployment rut now will be blighted by a decelerated passage of progress compared to their counterparts who are able to traverse the current economic situation relatively harm free.

So what can we do to help Generation Z?

The primary driver of employment is growth, especially for those just beginning their careers who can be taken on baord and groomed and moulded into the future workforce of an industry. But with ongoing austerity measures designed to to tackle structural problems, growth is being sacrified on the altar of a quick fix recovery.

The other solution is to take these people out of the job market by placing them into training. While they may not be earning money, many believe the best solution is occupying them with studies which will also prepare them for participation in the workforce when the better days finally do arrive.

However, with structural state deficits as they are across European nations, governments are ill placed to pour money into the further education of a group of people who have already negotiated the school system and have either chosen not to enter further education, or have come out of it to find no job at the other end as well as potentially a large amount of debt already accrued in their bank accounts.

The situation isn't uniformly bleak across Europe. In Germany, young people's prospects for work have never been brighter. Yet this may also be a reflection on the higher number of young people engaged in education and vocational training.

It is essential countries like Spain and Greece need to ensure Generation Z are well rounded, fully engaged and highly skilled young adults, ready to compete in an ultra competitive global market place. However strategies to encourage youth into training schemes work best when they come with guarantees of employment at the end. However prolonging the amount of time spent in education is not the solution.

Whilst in Germany the length of a degree is similar to that in the UK, in Spain many courses take much longer. As a result, young people may be dissuaded from signing up to such a big commitment, with many degrees taking up to six years, when they are already demoralised by the society in which they live and as a result would be less likely to want to make such an investment when their prospects look bleak.

Meanwhile those attending shorter courses will likely come out the other side to see little change, and may feel even more let down by the system.

At the same time, austerity measures are seeing an increase in retirement age across Europe . It's ironic that at one end of the demographic you have people seeking work who are unable to find it, while at the toher you have people wanting to leave work but finding they must remain in employment for years to come. On top of that, regulations and directives from Brussels restricting flexibility in the workplace are preventing dynamic handling of the socio-economic situation from the bottom up. From the working time directive to the agency workers directive, legislation is costing companies billions in red tape and making it expensive to take on new staff.

It is also likely that such social regulation has also affected the expectations of Generation Z, who are becoming less willing than previous generations to perform what they deem menial tasks, or work for long hours for perceived little pay.

Meanwhile the generation in question has been brought up in a Western capitalist society where they know little other than a culture that demands recognition, luxury items and a certain lifestyle which in itself denigrades the usual forms of employment for those just starting their working lives. As a result, many 18 to 24 year olds look down their noses at employment opportunities in supermarkets or manufacturing plants. As a result, many of those jobs are taken up by migrant workers who essentially flee unemployment in their own countries, but by doing so, essentially shift the burden of jobs creation and welfare onto another country.

The cost of youth unemployment in Europe could be very high. This summer as Spain joins the ranks of Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Greece in economic turmoil, expect to see more riots from a disgruntled public on the streets, with a large proportion of protesters hailing from the 18-24 year old age bracket.

For every young person out of education and out of work, not only is an individual's capability wasted, but also their spirit. It is high time Brussels sought to rescind restrictive regulation that places a stranglehold on enterprise and curtail uncontrolled and exacerbatory free movement of people, if only to give the youth of today a chance while the going is tough.

Meanwhile as adults and as parents, it is our job as a society to keep the fire in their bellies alive, and thank or lucky stars when we have a solid income and a stable job.

Mr Barroso, you can stick your £6.4 billion where the sun don't shine (probably in a Swiss bank vault)

Today's press has largely revolved around the #CamDineWithMe thread.

Just who has the Prime Minister had to dinner?

One wonders whether Mr Cameron has had Jose Manuel Barroso over for fish and chips and a pot of tea, judging by the astonishing offer the President of the European Commission put on the table last week.

In a bid to push through the controversial Financial Transactions Tax, or Tobin Tax, which would see a levy placed on all international transactions that would go straight to EU coffers, Mr Barroso waved a tantalizing metaphorical wad of cash under our Prime Minister's nose.

He proposed cutting the UK's contributions to the EU by €7.7 billion, or £6.4 billion.

So far the UK has stood steadfast against the proposals which would see the City of London shoulder the bulk of the charges (around 80%) when similar levies are not applied in other countries. Fears that this would drive the Financial Services industry out of the UK have far from been assuaged by the Commission President's offer.

The tax would in effect allow national contributions by the EU to be cut in half, essentially moving towards the EU becoming a self-funded, and thus federal, set up. One imagines that the long term goal would be to steer all taxation towards Brussels, essentially subsuming the last bastion of sovereignty into the realm of the EU.

However the FTT would, in effect, be the City of London funding their federal dreams.

It is estimated membership fees could be cut by €54 billion, while countries could keep a third of the proceeds they levy themselves.

The idea, originally the brain child of French President and 'Anglo-Saxon'- hating Nicholas Sarkozy, couldn't work unless the choice was made unanimously and universally ensuring that such a system would operate around the world and that banks in London wouldn't simply up sticks and leave. It's hardly surprising that Sarkozy would want to make the City of London the EU's cash cow and has even gone as far as leading a pact of nine EU countries that want to see the proposed levy pushed through. Without the City, Britain's might would be significantly lessened, silencing the often most stubborn and uncooperative member state of Europe and making her more subservient to the EU dream, enabling France and Germany to step up and take greater control. For decades our Financial Services have been the envy of our European neighbours, putting us on an equal footing with other great cities like New York. Imagine being able to not only take that away, but use it to fund what was primarily a French conception of European supranationalism, and you can see why Sarkozy is going around with his clip board trying to extract the signatures of the other European leaders.

It's estimated the Financial Transactions tax would be worth some €54 billion, which suddenly makes the €7.7 billion sweetener look a little sour.

It's not hard to see why the City of London is so valuable to the UK.

Financial Services in the City of London employ 349,200 in London alone, and a staggering 1,111,500 across the UK.

The City of London contributes 2.4% to the national income, while financial services represent 19.5% of total national income in the whole of London.

The financial services sector accounts for 10% of the total national income of Great Britain. Staggering figures when you think that this is just one industry we are talking about.

The financial services sector as a whole made a total tax contribution of £63bn in the tax year to March 2011, representing 12% of total government tax receipts.

As the largest international banking centre in the world, with banks in the UK accounting for over 20% of global cross-border banking business, the City is an important attribute to the UK as a global player.

Total banking assets in the UK, at around £8 billion, are equivalent to more than five times the country’s total GDP.

Most of the world’s largest banks have their international business activities in London, including many foreign banks. In fact foreign banks in the UK currently employ around 124,000 people. By whacking an almighty tax on these banks, what is to stop them simply moving elsewhere?

Stamp duty is already paid on almost all financial transactions made already in Britain and is rightly under the onus of the UK Government.

Essentially the FTT is more than just a big earner. Politically it is a pivotal and schismatic blow that if pushed through could change the course of the EU forever.

It's hard to understand why we don't just follow the Swiss model and stay well away from the European Union. Last year Switzerland was ranked the wealthiest country in the world per capita. Its ranked 8th in the world in terms of GDP per capita, according to the World Bank and IMF and last year the Swiss Franc is one of the world's strongest currencies with the lowest inflation rate of 0.7%

It has one of the lowest rates of taxation in the developing world and an extremely felxible job market with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Switzerland has free trade agreements worldwide and is home to some of the world's biggest companies. She continues to trade with the EU freely yet has resolutely blocked EU membership every time Brussels comes crawling.

Whether or not the UK would be like Switzerland if we were to leave the EU is unclear. But one thing is for certain. We would be a lot better off out.

If Britain Were Greece

Just watched an excellent comparitive piece on the BBC Website
If Britain were Greece.

The journalist has assimilated the facts and statistics of Greece's swinging austerity measures imposed by the Troika of the EU, IMF and ECB into a British context.

Here's a summary below:

Unemployment would have hit 7 million

Half of all young would be out of work

Minimum wage would be cut from £6.08 per hour to £4.74 per hour, or for under 18s, be reduced from £4.98 to £3.39 per hour.

100,000 public sector workers would be waiting redundancy with their salaries meanwhile cut by 40%

1 million public sector workers would be sacked by 2015

All public sector workers salaries would not just be frozen but cut sharply

VAT would go up 24%

Solidarity levy would account for 5% of income

Alcohol and tobacco prices would be increased by 1/3

Diesel and petrol would rise to around £2 per litre, meaning it would cost £120 to fill the tank of family saloon

State and public sector pensions above £800 a month would be cut by 20%

Anyone with a pension above that rate would see it cut by no less than 40%

The equivalent increase in retirement age would see many Brits working well into their 70s

All state benefits would be slashed and strictly means-tested

Defence budget would be slashed by a fifth, meaning the loss of many personel and the likely merge of the army, navy and air force

NHS spending would be cut bu a sixth, leading to tens of thousands of job losses for medical staff

There would also be the closure of numerous schools, meaning thousands of teachers unemployed.

The outlook for Greece is ghastly and is certainly not set to improve any time soon. And all to protect the common currency project that props up the European Union.

Horrifying, isn't it?

The Little Town with the Big Cathedral that was

...And is now a city!

As part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, city status has been conferred on a town in all four constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

In Wales, the recipient was St Asaph.
The small town in Denbighshire, home to a modest 3,400 people and only 1,550 residential properties, can now proudly call itself a city.

But what's in a name?

It is often erroneously held that only a Cathedral maketh a city.
Yet there are numerous examples of cities in the UK without cathedrals, Birmingham the most notable, as well as Cambridge, Derby, Hull and around 10 others.

Similarly, where there is a Cathedral, there is not always city status. St Asaph was one such example.

As from 1888, the presence of a cathedral ceased to be a relevant factor in granting city status, although St Asaph's voluntary run community newspaper goes under the title The City Times.

The little Welsh city attracts some 800,000 visitors annually, with the Cathedral, which dates back 1,400 years, being the focal attraction.

However the award of a city status does not come with increased administrative powers or attract more government funding. So what does this ceremonious honour actually bring?

For those connected with the City's historic landmark, it represents acknowledgement of the ancient cathedral which they feel was devalued by St Asaph's lack of city status.

Other than that, the moniker brings no special rights other than conferring on a place the title of "City" which many believe encompasses a prestige in its own right.

It will however mean money spent on changing signage, letter headings, guide books and the like. But will it attract more visitors?

I would venture to say yes. At least for the near future.

After all, we are talking about it, and you are reading this, and perhaps if you hadn't been there before or even heard of the Cathedral you may now be thinking of calling in for a look around. And footfall means liquid cash.

However despite it's dainty size and idyllic setting, St Asaph is by no means the smallest city in the UK. That badge can proudly be worn by St Davids in Pembrokeshire, whose population of 1,797 (at the last count) means it is less than half the size of its North Walean relative.

Some might say that the campaign for city status attracts regeneration and inward investment. Just being in the race mean a significant facelift for a large number of the runners.

But rumour has it, little St Asaph, who until the 1960s actually thought it was a city, only set aside £300 for their bid compared to the thousands larger connurbations pumped into their efforts.

Either way, the status is likely something that people do not even wish to monetise.

It's a special moment and a day of pride for the community, and that, many would say, is priceless.