Ce a spus la BNR Viscount Etienne Davignon, seful Bilderberg, grupul in care se discuta soarta lumii

Autor: Bancherul.ro
2011-10-15 17:10

Grupul Bilderberg este numele unei conferinte anuale la care participa politicieni (sefi de stat si de guverne, ministri, ambasadori) si economisti (sefii marilor banci centrale si comerciale si ai marilor corporatii).

Prima conferinta a avut loc la Hotel de Bilderberg, lângă Arnhem în Olanda, in 1954, de unde si numele conferintei, fiind initiata de un grup de persoane, printre care politicianul polonez Joseph Retinger, îngrijorati de creşterea anti-americanismului în Europa de Vest.

Motiv pentru care acestia s-au gandit la organizarea unei conferinte internationale la care sa se adune lideri din ţările europene şi Statele Unite, cu scopul de a promova Atlanticismul, adica o mai bună înţelegere între culturile din Statele Unite şi Europa de Vest si promovarea cooperarii pe probleme politice, economice, şi de apărare.

Retinger l-a abordat pe Prinţul Bernhard al Olandei, care a fost de acord să promoveze ideea, împreună cu fostul prim-ministru belgian Paul Van Zeelanda si şeful Unilever, olandezul Paul Rijkens. Bernhard la rândul său, l-a contactat pe Walter Bedell Smith, seful CIA, care i-a prezentat propunerea consilierului lui Eisenhower, Charles Douglas Jackson. Ca urmare, 50 de delegaţi din 11 ţări din Europa de Vest au participat la prima conferinţă, împreună cu 11 americani.

O alta conferinta de acest gen, Comisia Trilaterala, la care au participat si Mugur Isarescu si Mihai Tanasescu (singurii romani participanti), a fost infiintata mai tarziu, in 1972 de catre David Rockefeller, dupa ce Grupul Bilderberg a refuzat sa includa si Japonia.

Mugur Isarescu a participat si la o alta conferinta anuala cu iz secret si conspirativ, despre care se spune ca pune la cale soarta omenirii, si anume cea din statiunea montana Jackson Hole din statul american Wyoming, organizata de Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas si unde, in august 1990, Isarescu anunta noua politica economica si financiara a Romaniei dupa caderea dictaturii.

Revenind la ceea ce s-a intamplat vineri la BNR, iata cum a decurs conferinta desfasurata, fireste, in limba engleza, din care reproducem declaratiile, cat mai fidel cu putinta, cu toate ca BNR nu a asigurat conditii propice pentru ziaristi, carora nu le-a fost permisa prezenta in sala in care s-a desfasurat conferinta, astfel incat acestia au fost nevoiti sa urmareasca discursurile la un mic televizor dintr-o sala alaturata, al carui sunet a fost greu de sesizat. Mai ales ca seful Bilderberg, un belgian, a avut un discurs in limba engleza destul de greu de urmarit, cu fraze sub forma de suvoaie, fara prea multe intonatii. Semnele de intrebare, de exclamatie, punctele si paragrafele au fost greu de identificat, astfel incat coerenta discursului a avut de suferit. Presedintele conferintei Bilderberg are, probabil, alte calitati, insa nu este un bun orator, nici macar un bun conferentiar.

(Am fost curios sa vad ce a prezentat una dintre televiziunile care a organizat evenimentul si care a avut exclusivitate la conferinta si astfel am aflat ca vicecontele Davignon a venit la Bucuresti cu unghiile murdar si cu talpa pantofilor tocita. Nu conteaza ce a spus.)

Discursul lui Mugur Isarescu

Mugur Isarescu: "It is a great pleasure for the National Bank of Romania and an honour for me to host...provoking and substantion discutions about the challenges currently facing world and particulary Europe... Tonight we have the privilege of welcome umong us two of the greatest mindes in the world today. They are both leaders of event shaping and agenda setting organizations that influence the course of history by the power of the ideas they have and gender.

It is my pleasure tonight to present you Viscount Etienne Davignon (foto), chairman of the Bilderberg Group. The proud native of Belgium, he was foreign affair ministry of his country, vice-president of the European Commision and the first president of the International Energy Agency. With the keen and intimate knowlege of the spectacular institutional framework which is the European Union, Viscount Davignon has been uphailing in having the (visility) and presence of mind to identify both its strengths and weaknesses. Viscount, allow me to salute you and kindly thank you for joining us tonight...

I'm also pleased to welcome the respected journalist Emil Hurezeanu, who will be moderating tonight disccutions.. Mr. Hurezeanu was a voice of hope through Radio Free Europe. During the last few years, he has given us the benefit of his inside regarding Romania...Distinguised guests, let me assure you that tonight we have an audiance of highest caliber. It is no exageration to note that some of the Romanian most important thinkers and decision makers are gathered here tonight. (Among the guests stood out Ion Iliescu, Nicolae Vacaroiu, Adrian Nastase, Daniel Daianu, Radu Ghetea, Rasvan Radu and almost the entire NBR government commitee n.r.).

Emil Hurezeanu, the moderater

Emil Hurezeanu: "We'll have a first hour of questions, my questions, on the floor, to these gentlemen, a q&a session and then the last half an hour will be dedicated to you (the public), we'll open the floor to you, ladies and gentlement. So let's start. The perspective of the institutional redefining of the European Union in terms of an increased level of integration by.. the establishment of the ministry of finance of the EU over European treasury, initially only for the Eurozone contries. Well, three sub-questions: how deep should this reform be, then how advsible is for the member states that the EU finance ministers jet...combines, joint the fiscal policies and de (unitory) fee and tax policy? Sirs, it's over to you. Viscunt Davignon.

Ce a spus seful Bilderberg la BNR

Viscount Etienne Davignon: "Allow me first to tell the governer that I'll use a quotation of... who said that "nothing is nicer than exagerated friends. So you enjoy it but don't believe it". I can assure you I don't believe it.

The question you've asked is... do we need a redefining of our institutional setup to solve the problemes we are confronted with today? And the answer is clearly "no". The capacity to act if the will to act exists, exists inside the present structures. Is it strong enough to guarantee the future? That is why we are thinking of modifications and changes, but I think you would be misguided to believe that the institutionals framework does not allow to take the indispensable decissions related to the present crisis as we have it.

The present crisis is very simply to define: is that now someone mistakes are considerd by markets exactly in the same situation as by debt investors. The risk of the sovereigns debt is comparable to the risk of an individual or an institution? Yes, we are ready to lend you money but we want to know what are the securities that we get. This had not exist before. Before, banks lined up to lend to sovereign states regarded it was considered as a no risk situation. That has changed. The first country hat saw the change is the crisis which came up in Greece.

All the most difficult from the public opinion point of view is that part of what was discovered was not disclosed. And of course, when you are confronted with de problems and when you call all the solidarity, which is the consecance of carring a joint currency, you do not like to feel cheated. Here again, the responsabilly is not a case at all.

When the European Commision requested for the auditors to go and check of the accouns, a majority of countries refused to give that power to the European Commision because they did't want the auditors to put their nose in their affaires. Major mistake.

Secondly, since the start of the Monetary Union, a number of voices and important voices were saying if you don't have the key which is economic and monetary union, if you don't have a higher degree of coherence of the economical and monetary policy, will run into difficulty. And here again, as seen inside the European Union, the Stability Pact, which (made it a) debate into the decision to have a monetary union, suddenly Germany and France were no longer complient with the obligations of stability pact. They said: "whether you put your house as a collateral it's OK". Major mistake, major mistake of the European Commision of not going to the Court of Justice to get this because that is their responsability and so as everything was going well, but it haven't.

The third element which was not confirmed was the question was raised very clearly what happens if one element does not follow a proper, an ortodox fiscal policy. And the answer was the markets will act, the cost of borrowing will go up...but the markets saw nothing. The wrong thing was that once you have a common currency, whatever everybody did in particular did nothing it all was people did colectivly with market and so there was a sanction which was I think generaly believed to be the sanction of the markets if people did not behave, did not happen.

The three elements of getting out of the crisis

The only common sense attitude is: It's impossible not to make mistakes, it is indispensable not to make the same mistakes... And so we come to the three elements of getting out of the crisis.

Nr.1: reinforsing the obligation of fiscal orthodoxy... which the governments decided on, that the European Parliament has voted up, so it becomes an obligation with sanctions. Not only the sanction of the market, the sanction of the sistem. It is enough, it is not enough? To fight all is difficult but it is a recognision of the mistakes we made.

The second question is the Greek question: if a government guarancy is a guarancy of everyone and you can't be interested in one country having this guranty and running in difficulty. So what happens here is that all three have to realise that there has to be an end to the Greek story... and the necesarry steps we take them which do not creat a former default of Greece in the relace with sovereign debt.

Why is this something that we have to avoid? Not because perse it is something which is the money, but because the concern is if the common reaction to an individual problem is not solved why would not that happen to another country?

And if we can live with the cost of the Greek crisis it is clear that neither we nor the rest of the world because of the consequences
in Europe can live with the crisis of a major economy inside the European Union.

So we have to get that right we now have a fund which has been approved by 27 countries and in terms of the capacity to act we have to act individualy because soverenity was not handed over to the European Union and we did that with ratification by 27 Parliaments in three months. In historically and politicaly terms that is lighty speed. So it's posible.

And the third element is that we have to show that we are concerned about the necesary measures we have to take so that (cause) is restored. If we don't restore...we don't have the proper balance in between orthodoxy and if we don't have it we have nothing but if we only have orthodoxy we don't have a future.

So these are the key things that we have to do. Once we stand up then we have to sit down and see how we can do things but I don't belive one minute in the idea of a EU finance minister. Not one second.

It is completley contradictory to the concept that is: not a state or nation dissapear at the request by the European Union that happen like this or that. We are not trying to gear the United States of Europe...but in the time framing which we have, what are we doing is we are sharing soverignity. And by doind this we decide that there are a number of issues, none of us individually can decide and we have to decide corectly.

And of course we will have to decide by a majority of votes. There is a kind of a new look at the situations and you look at an institution like the IMF which is not an highly integrated institution...

• Tipareste detalii
• Trimite pe mail
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google
• Vizualizari: 1340

Comentarii

Nume *:

E-mail *:
(nu se afiseaza pe site)
Subiect:
*
Comentariu:



Tastati codul din imagine (doar cifre)