Spain Officially under Brussels Rule

By requesting a financial bailout of its banking system and accepting all measures recommended by Brussels, Spain has effectively walked into the wolf’s den.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 26, 2012

The reaction to Spain’s decision to accept a financial bailout for its banking system had immediate reactions everywhere in that country and abroad. First, the decision to request over $100 billion dollars to Brussels to rescue what the country’s Prime Minister says is 30 percent of the banks caused the collapse of the stock market. Second, by the mid afternoon, the adoption of new rules from the European bankers caused Moody’s to downgrade 28 Spanish banks and left Spain’s credit rating just above junk status. Third, The European Union will, as it did with other countries that were rescued, assumed complete power of the budgetary policy of the Spanish government.

On Thursday, European finance ministers will meet to discuss the details of the latest European rescue which implies that Spain will have to adopt every single recommendations originated in Brussels. Any violation to such rules will consequently bring harsh penalties against the peninsular nation. Another issue that will be discussed on Thursday and Friday will be the guidelines that the European government will give each nation that requested a bailout in regards to the supervision that the euro zone leaders will exercise over the banking system and the amount that each government will spend, how and when they will spend it.

Now that Spain is in the bag, European leaders like Herman Van Rompuy, Jose Manuel Barroso, Jean-Claude Juncker and Mario Draghi are proposing to establish a system where there is complete centralized control over the financial sector in each of the countries which will include the economic and budgetary matters. In Spain, economists and TV commentators are already analysing the implications of such a decision, since Spain has no longer anything to say about what is done with its finances. The Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has said on national television that new and more difficult measures are still to come. Those measures include a 10 percent increase in the sales taxes, which will reach 18 percent. This increase is surely to affect the prices and food and other basic needs.

After the increase in the sales tax or IVA, Spain will have to ‘reform’ its pension system, which will mean that Brussels will also take control over the retirement of millions of Spanish people. Those who have contributed into the retirement system, will have to retire later and take a significant haircut to their benefits once they decide to stop working. That is if they receive any retirement benefits at all. Additionally, the government will also propose a cut in the salaries it pays to workers in the public sector and a considerable reduction in the number of people it will employ once Brussels recommendations are effective.

Although the details of Spain’s bailout are not fully disclosed to the public or the media, leaks provided to some economists in that country detail that the country will have to take care of the bankers’ debt for at least the next quarter of a century while paying an interest rate of between 3 and 5 percent. Spain’s incapacity to meet its obligations was the caused cited by Moody’s for its most recent downgrade, Meanwhile, and as a consequence of such downgrade, Spain will have to continue paying higher interest rates at bond auctions. This situation would get even worse of Spain needed another financial bailout in the near future.

French junior budget minister Jerome Cahuzac, one of the people who meets today with the rest of his European colleagues to work out the details of Brussels meeting on Thursday, has said that it is only fair that Spain also submits its sovereignty just as his own country and many others in the euro zone have done it as a condition to receive so-called rescue packages. “This is what we are talking about, budget solidarity in Europe which implies that not only that the French budget, but also the German, Italian and Spanish budgets be subjected to a review by all our partners,” Cahuzac said.

As we reported yesterday, Spain is now finalizing a memorandum of understanding which will be presented before the Eurogroup on July 9, where the final decisions will be made by the 17 finance ministers who work on behalf of the European bankers. The Spanish economy minister explained that the money loaned to Spain will be managed through the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB), which is supposed to be a state-backed cashier, but that in reality is a banker-controlled window that dictates where will the funds recently requested by Spain will be directed.

As it has happened throughout Europe, most of the measures adopted by governments to supposedly deal with the economic crisis have only tightened the belt of the working class, the people who always take on the heaviest burden when banks decide to collapse a country’s financial and economic system. In the case of Spain, as we have said, the financial rescue of its banks means prices going through the roof, later retirement, less or no retirement benefits, a reduction in the purchasing power for the middle and lower classes and a perpetual state of indebtedness for the next 2 or 3 generations of Spanish people, who will have to work all of their lives to pay the debt incurred into by the Spanish banking system.

Secretive Committee meets again to “save Euro”

WSJ

Two months after Lehman Brothers collapsed in the fall of 2008, a small group of European leaders set up a secret task force—one so secret that they dubbed it “the group that doesn’t exist.”

Its mission: Devise a plan to head off a default by a country in the 16-nation euro zone.

When Greece ran into trouble a year later, the conclave, whose existence has never before been reported, had yet to agree on a strategy. In a prelude to a cantankerous public debate that would later delay Europe’s response to the euro-zone debt crisis until the eleventh hour, the task force struggled to surmount broad disagreement over whether and how the euro zone should rescue one of its own. It never found the answer.

A Wall Street Journal investigation, based on dozens of interviews with officials from around the EU, reveals that the divisions that bedeviled the task force pushed the currency union perilously close to collapse. In early May, just hours before Germany and France broke their stalemate and agreed to endorse a trillion-dollar fund to rescue troubled euro-zone members, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde told her delegation the euro zone was on the verge of breaking apart, according to people familiar with the matter.

The euro zone’s near death had stakes for people around the world. A wave of government defaults on Europe’s periphery could have triggered a new crisis in the international banking system, with even worse consequences for the global economy than the failure of Lehman.

The dangerous dithering was driven by ideological divisions that continue to paralyze the currency union’s search for solutions to its structural flaws. Deep differences on economic policy between Europe’s frugal north and laxer south, between Germany and France, and between national governments and central EU institutions hindered an effective early response to the crisis. Only when faced with calamity—the collapse of the euro zone—did leaders put aside their differences and reach a compromise.

Complicating matters: The two most important politicians deciding the fate of the euro often had conflicting agendas—and much at stake personally.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, known in France as the “hyper-president” for his relentless flurry of new initiatives, faced declining approval ratings as his domestic economic overhaul stalled. The excitable 55-year-old leader saw that Greece’s woes could rock the euro zone. Mr. Sarkozy seized on the issue as an opportunity to prove his leadership chops and thus shore up his popularity.

For German Chancellor Angela Merkel, 56, the crisis was the biggest test of her career. A trained physicist known for her cautious, deliberative style, she feared a backlash from German voters and lawmakers, and defeat in Germany’s supreme court, if she risked taxpayer money on serial deficit-sinner Greece. Despite pressure from Mr. Sarkozy, she fiercely resisted a quick fix.

When Mr. Sarkozy barreled into one meeting with camera crews and photographers in tow, Ms. Merkel icily ordered the cameras out: “I won’t let you do this to me,” she said, warning she wouldn’t play the part of “the stubborn old bag.”

Europe eventually did establish a rescue fund in May. By then the price of calm had soared, requiring a pledge of €750 billion. It defused the panic but hasn’t snuffed out the crisis: Unsustainable borrowing still poses huge challenges, especially in Greece and Ireland.

The danger of a government-debt crisis in the euro zone began to preoccupy top European policy makers in October 2008. Hungary, an EU member which doesn’t use the euro, found itself unable to sell bonds to jittery investors. The EU, using an existing but little-used program, and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank swiftly propped up Hungary by pledging about €20 billion in loans.

But it soon became apparent that the euro zone had no tools to save one of its own. EU treaties made clear the facility used for Hungary was off limits to euro members. For most EU officials, the IMF was taboo, too: Its loans were fine for poor ex-Communist nations, they felt, but not for developed euro members.

In March 2009, French Treasury official Xavier Musca was preparing to step down as chairman of the Economic and Financial Committee, an influential body of technocrats who manage EU economic policy. He briefed his successor, Thomas Wieser of Austria, on the duties. At the end of a long list, he added one more. “Incidentally,” Mr. Musca said, “there’s a group that doesn’t exist.”

The secret task force, coordinated by the committee chairman, had been meeting surreptitiously since November 2008 to craft a plan should a Hungary-style crisis strike a euro nation. Membership was limited to senior policy makers—usually just below ministerial level—from France, Germany, the European Commission, Europe’s central bank and the office of Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg premier who heads an assembly of euro finance ministers.

The task force met in the shadows of the EU’s many councils and summits in Brussels, Luxembourg and other capitals, often gathering at 6 a.m. or huddling over sandwiches late at night. Participants kept colleagues in their own governments in the dark, for fear leaks would trigger rampant speculation in financial markets.

Potential crisis candidates were obvious: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, a group of deeply indebted states derisively tagged with the acronym “PIGS” by bond traders.

A gap quickly opened up between Germany, attached to euro-zone rules it viewed as banning bailouts for profligate countries, and France, which wanted greater freedom for national governments to support each other as they saw fit.

A fault line also developed over whether EU institutions should run any bailout operation. The European Commission, the union’s executive branch, pushed for a central role in raising and lending funds—and found an ally in France. Germany, wary of a power grab, was deeply reluctant to put its cash in Brussels’ hands.

The German finance ministry feared the commission was trying to establish a precedent for centralized European public borrowing, through EU bonds. That would imply Germany, Europe’s strongest creditor, subsidizing other nations. Instead, Germany insisted any aid must come via loans by the individual euro-zone members to a stricken country. That way Berlin, writer of the biggest check, could control the process and force a wayward recipient to reform itself.

The philosophical divide among task-force members persisted for nearly a year. Last October, it ceased to be academic.

That month, Greece’s newly elected Socialist government declared the country’s 2009 budget deficit was heading for 12.5% of gross domestic product—more than three times the previous government’s official forecast.

Stunned investors began to dump Greek bonds. Greece faced daunting debt repayments in spring 2010, and it wasn’t at all clear if it would have the money to make them.

By February, it became obvious that the 16-nation euro zone would have to do something to address the Greek bond meltdown. The secret task force of France, Germany and EU bureaucrats opened its doors to the rest of the member countries—except Greece.

A summit of EU leaders had been planned for Feb. 11 to mull Europe’s long-term economic goals. Governments insisted publicly that Greece was “not on the agenda.” The hope, say aides to several European leaders, was that if Europe didn’t upset the markets by talking about the matter, Greece might be able to sell enough bonds to escape trouble.

But Greek bond prices—a key measure of investor confidence—began plunging in the days before the meeting. Luxembourg’s Mr. Juncker convened an emergency teleconference of euro-zone finance ministers on the eve of the summit. They agreed on a statement to be read at the summit’s conclusion pledging “support” for Greece.

In Berlin’s austere chancellery building, Ms. Merkel wasn’t happy. Her advisers were telling her that Greece’s problems ran deeper than a short-term cash shortage: The country was economically uncompetitive and living beyond its means. Without a deep overhaul, a quick-fix bailout would keep Greece afloat for only a few months, they warned. In addition, Germany’s supreme court would strike down a bailout, the advisers warned, unless it was absolutely unavoidable.

Deep in the night, Ms. Merkel called other leaders, including President Sarkozy, and made it clear she would veto any promise of aid for Greece unless Athens took much tougher action to cut its public spending and overhaul its economy.

Mr. Sarkozy replied that Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was already taking brave action.

“Now it is time for Europe to help,” he said.

“The financial markets will say this is not a solution,” Ms. Merkel told the French leader.

The next day’s summit, on a Thursday, was scheduled for 10:15 a.m. at the Bibliotheque Solvay, a historic library on a Brussels hilltop. Late Wednesday, EU President Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium postponed it by more than two hours. Snowy weather was the official explanation given for the delay.

In reality, Mr. Van Rompuy huddled that morning in his office on the fifth floor of the EU’s summit building with a few key leaders—including Ms. Merkel, Mr. Sarkozy and the head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet. Other European leaders were cooling their heels at the library. On currency markets, the euro was gyrating in anticipation of a bold rescue—or a bust.

Mr. Sarkozy pushed the chancellor for a clear public declaration that Europe stood behind Greece. “I cannot buy that,” Ms. Merkel responded.

Eventually, Mr. Van Rompuy brokered a compromise, in the form of a nine-word sentence tacked on to a statement aides were scribbling out on a conference table: “The Greek government has not requested any financial support.” The language sneaked in a back-door mention of Greece, but it conformed to Ms. Merkel’s insistence that the country not be offered any help.

She had won the round.

Other European leaders believed Ms. Merkel was playing for time because of domestic politics. Her center-right coalition faced a crucial regional election on May 9 in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state. Opinion polls showed voters were furious about the prospect of bailing out the profligate Greeks.

“It was clear that the election was playing a big role,” says the finance minister of another euro-zone country. Spokesmen for Ms. Merkel strenuously deny that North Rhine-Westphalia influenced her tactics on Greece.

The chancellor struggled to rein in speculation about an imminent bailout one Friday in late February, when the head of Germany’s biggest bank, Deutsche Bank Chief Executive Josef Ackermann, mysteriously appeared in Athens for consultations with Greek leaders. Mr. Ackermann had an idea for supplying Greece with up to €30 billion of credit—half from Germany and France, half from major European banks.

In a phone call from Athens that day, Mr. Ackermann pitched the proposal to Ms. Merkel’s chief economic adviser, Jens Weidmann. The reply: unacceptable. “You cannot tell the Greeks that this is a German government offer,” Mr. Weidmann said, fearing the already-widespread impression that Mr. Ackermann was acting as a go-between.

A posse of cameras met Mr. Ackermann when he emerged from the Greek parliament building. “I’m regularly in Greece because I love Greece and the beautiful weather,” a grinning Mr. Ackermann said, before disappearing into his armored Mercedes-Benz.

By mid-March, Greek Premier Papandreou was clamoring openly for Europe to reassure markets by putting money on the table. Ms. Merkel went on German public radio that month and said Greece didn’t need aid. An upcoming EU summit should focus on other issues—and other European leaders shouldn’t stir up “false expectations,” she said.

But behind the scenes, Ms. Merkel was starting to take over the contingency planning.

There was one thing the secret task force had agreed on: Europe, not the IMF, would handle any bailout. The German finance ministry felt the same. Involving the Washington-based fund in a bailout of Greece would be an admission of European weakness, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said publicly. Mr. Sarkozy, Mr. Juncker and ECB chief Trichet all shared that view strongly.

Ms. Merkel, however, overruled them all. Her advisers were telling her that aid to Greece could be sold to her skeptical countrymen only as part of a wrenching IMF program of economic adjustment for Greece. IMF-inflicted pain would also deter other indebted euro-zone countries from seeking aid.

The disagreement came to a head before the broader EU’s regular spring summit in Brussels on March 25.

That afternoon, before all 27 leaders gathered, Ms. Merkel met Mr. Sarkozy in one of the many spartan meeting rooms in the EU’s warren-like headquarters. The chancellor agreed to announce that the euro zone would rescue Greece if it faced default—but only as a last resort, once Greece had exhausted its access to capital markets. Also, the IMF must be part of any loan package, and the IMF—not the European Commission—should draw up Greece’s program of overhauls, she said.

Mr. Sarkozy protested against involving the IMF, whose biggest shareholder is the U.S. government. Europe cannot let “the Americans” decide who gets credit in Europe, he said.

Ms. Merkel put her foot down, insisting that only the IMF had the necessary experience. Mr. Sarkozy, recognizing that Germany’s financial muscle was essential for any bailout, reluctantly gave way.

On April 11, with the crisis of investor confidence spreading from Greek government bonds to the country’s banking system, the EU finally put money on the table. As Germany wanted, the €30 billion for the first year would come in the form of 15 separate government-to-government loans, while the IMF would lend another €15 billion. Officials hoped the sum, enough to cover Greece’s borrowing needs for less than a year, would be enough to calm markets.

It wasn’t.

The New Global Financial Order Begins in Europe

Banksters agree to force reviews on countries financial operations if  ‘suspect flaws’ arise.

Financial Times

Order out of chaos.  The EU takes more power away from nation-states.

Order out of chaos. The EU takes more power away from nation-states.

European Union finance ministers agreed on Tuesday to new intervention powers for EU officials if member states’ economic statistics are suspected to be flawed.

The measure will allow officials from the EU’s statistical agency Eurostat and the European Commission to conduct “methodological visits”, sending in number crunchers to vet countries’ data if this is deemed necessary.

The intervention powers, however, will only come into play in strictly defined circumstances in which concerns have been flagged. Diplomats cite, for example, the situation in which a country revises its figures at short notice and without a clear explanation for this as a possible case for intervention.

Similar powers have been proposed in the past, but failed to secure the backing of EU member states. However, the data flaws that emerged during the Greek crisis and the new emphasis on tougher economic surveillance in the region, coupled with pressure from European parliamentarians, has persuaded countries to accept the potentially intrusive powers.

The new surveillance measure is one of the most concrete actions expected to come out of Tuesday’s meeting of finance ministers from the 27-country bloc in Luxembourg. They will also discuss economic governance – including a new stability programme for Cyprus and additional budgetary consolidation in Spain and Portugal – as well as proposals, driven by the European Commission, to strengthen financial regulation.

Some of these discussions will pave the way for further debate at the EU leaders’ summit in Brussels next week.

“There’s lots of policy debate ahead of the council meeting and those debates are pretty significant, but no meaty items,” said one diplomat.

On Monday night, Herman Van Rompuy, the EU president, who is heading a special “task force” charged with improving economic governance in the bloc, said he believed “rapid progress” could be made on budgetary and macroeconomic surveillance. Proposals in this area would now be the focus of his interim report to EU leaders next week, he said.

Mr Van Rompuy is also thought to be leaning towards the French idea of some form of “economic government” for the eurozone. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has been pushing this idea, which would involve regular summits of eurozone leaders and give the bloc its own secretariat.

On Monday, finance ministers from the 16 eurozone countries also approved details of the “special purpose vehicle” facility, which could raise up to €440bn and make up the key part of their landmark €750bn stabilisation fund for the eurozone’s most vulnerable members.

The facility, based around a “special purpose vehicle”, which will raise money to be lent to countries in financial distress, will be called the European Financial Stability Facility and is expected to become active this month.

It will be backed by pro rata guarantees from individual member states. These will be for 120 per cent of each bond issue, providing a “cushion” should any individual contributor struggle to meet its share.

Countries will only be able to tap the fund when they have agreed programmes to overhaul their economies.

Finance ministers said they would seek “the best possible” credit rating for bonds or debt securities issued by the EFSF. “The message from finance ministers is that they will do whatever it takes to get an AAA rating on the debt issued by the SPV”, said analysts at JPMorgan on Tuesday .

● Estonia will join the euro from the beginning of 2011 after winning the backing of European finance ministers for the move.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister who heads the so-called Eurogroup, said that Estonia had agreed to “ensure the sustainability of convergence by implementing further structural reforms”. Estonia will be the 17th member of the eurozone.

Daniel Estulin Revela Agenda Bilderberg para Junio 2010

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Junio 1, 2010

El veterano investigador y autor Daniel Estulin ha adquirido una vez más una copia de la orden del día de la reunión anual de la élite del mundo. En una entrevista exclusiva con Corbett Report, Estulin reveló lo que los Bilderbergers debatirán en conciliábulo de este año en Sitges, España, entre el 3 y el 6 de junio.

Según los documentos que Estulin obtuvo de sus fuentes dentro del grupo secreto, los temas que se discutirán en las deliberaciones formales de este año son:

1. Sobrevivencia del Euro
2. Desarrollo en Europa: Estrategia de salida de Europa … en espera?
3. ¿Tenemos instituciones para lidiar con la economía mundial?
4. Grecia: Lecciones y estratégias orientadas hacia el futuro
5. La OTAN y Afganistán: La Agenda de prácticas para la Alianza
6. Irán y Rusia: Amenazas Económicas y Financieras de la Alianza
7. Las consecuencias de la guerra contra el terrorismo
8. La influencia de cuestiones internas de la política exterior estadounidense
9. Las Perspectivas para la economía de Japón
10. El futuro del dólar de EE.UU.: Escenarios Alternativos

Que los Bilderbergers -esencialmente una tertulia de Relaciones Europeas y de América del Norte- esten interesados en discutir la actual debacle de la economía europea no debería ser una sorpresa, sobre todo porque la lista de asistentes del grupo incluye muchos de los financieros claves y extractores que ayudaron a dirigir a Europa a la crisis en la que está. Algunos de los asistentes a reuniones anteriores fueron el Presidente de la UE, Herman Van Rompuy, que consiguió el trabajo como el primer jefe no electo de la organización antidemocrática llamada Unión Europea después de reunirse con los miembros del comité de dirección de Bilderberg. El año pasado se anunció el principio de gobierno mundial, alabando el creciente papel del G-20 para hacer frente a la crisis financiera mundial. Otros Bilderbergers clave incluyen a Jean-Claude Trichet, quien, como jefe del Banco Central Europeo, fue instrumental en ayudar a formular el “rescate” de Europea que está diseñado para incentivar la quiebra de los gobiernos del área. Trichet también recientemente clamó para que se forme un gobierno global que regule la crisis económica mundial y que fue creada por sus colegas de Bilderberger.

Aquellos que están familiarizados con el sueño largamente acariciado del grupo Bilderberg de lograr un gobierno mundial mediante la creación de un marco financiero internacional pueden sorprenderse ante la pregunta “¿tenemos instituciones para lidiar con la economía mundial?” Es el tercer orden del día en la reunión de este año. Tampoco será una sorpresa cuando la pregunta es, inevitablemente, respondida con la línea estándar globalista que las instituciones internacionales como el FMI y el Banco Mundial deben ser “fortalecidos” e incluso darles una mayor potestad reglamentaria como consecuencia de la crisis que ellos han producido, exactamente como observadores Bilderberg han estado prediciendo desde hace años. De hecho, como señala el propio Estulin en su último libro, Maestros de la Sombra o Shadow Masters, el ex subsecretario de Estado de EE.UU., George Ball manifestó el propósito de los globalistas en un discurso ante la reunión Bilderberg 1968 en Mont Tremblant, al afirmar que estaban interesados en el desarrollo de una ” empresa global” para hacerse cargo de la” estructura arcaica política de los estados nación “.

Otros puntos del orden del día están en línea con las cuestiones y los planes realizados en el Bilderberg del año pasado y las ideas debatidas en la reunión del G20 del año pasado, los Ministros de Hacienda, entre los cuales Estulin fue capaz de infiltrarse con sus fuentes en el interior. El hecho de que la alianza entre Irán y Rusia está en la agenda de este año es una redundancia, no sólo porque un ataque contra Irán estaba sobre la mesa en la reunión de la Comisión Trilateral de este año, sino porque, como dice Estulin en la entrevista de hoy, indica que el verdadero objeto de la agresión de los Bilderberg contra Irán es la desestabilización de Rusia, un país que tradicionalmente ha sido una espina en el costado de los globalistas.

Tal vez la única cosa que es sorprendente sobre el programa de este año es que el grupo secreto, que ha pasado inadvertido por muchos años gracias a la complicidad de la prensa, no ha tomado precauciones para prevenir que Estulin y sus fuentes de información se infiltren una vez más . “Estoy un poco decepcionado con los Bilderberg”, dijo vía telefónica desde España, donde reside actualmente. “Me gustaría pensar que han tomado ciertas precauciones y medidas, sobre todo viniendo a mi parte del mundo”.

Si bien el programa es sólo una guía para las discusiones del grupo más grande y la toma real de decisiones entre los principales miembros del grupo a puerta cerrada, esto sirve como un indicador de las cuestiones y acontecimientos que son preocupantes para los globalistas en esta delicada etapa de su funcionamiento, al igual que comenzar a hacer realidad su sueño de establecer un gobierno mundial por la fabricación de una depresión global. A pesar de que estos planes comienzan a dar frutos, la gente de Islandia, Grecia y otros países desarrollados están empezando a levantarse en masa para sacudir el yugo de la opresión financiera y los Bilderbergers hablan abiertamente de sus temores de un despertar político global .

La conferencia de este año marca un nuevo nivel de exposición y la oposición al grupo Bilderberg. Daniel Estulin hará un histórico discurso ante el Parlamento Europeo el 01 de junio, junto con Mario Borghezio, Nigel Farage, y otros diputados clave. Charlie Skelton, presentará informes una vez más para el periódico británico The Guardian, sobre una masiva contra-conferencia en la que los que se oponen a los Bilderbergers y sus procedimientos secretos se reunirán para llamar la atención sobre el grupo.

Bilderberg 2010 Agenda Leaked

Corbett Report

Veteran Bilderberg researcher and bestselling author Daniel Estulin has once again acquired a copy of the agenda for the annual meeting of the world’s power elite. In an exclusive interview with The Corbett Report earlier today, Estulin revealed what the Bilderbergers will be discussing at this year’s confab in Sitges, Spain on June 3-6, 2010.

According to the documents—which Estulin obtained from his sources inside the secretive group—issues to be discussed in this year’s formal deliberations are:

1. Will the Euro Survive?
2. Development in Europe: Europe’s Exit Strategy…On Hold?
3. Do We Have Institutions to Deal With the World Economy?
4. Greece: Lessons and Forward-looking Strategies
5. NATO and Afghanistan: The Practical Agenda for the Alliance
6. Iran and Russia: Economic and Financial Threats to the Alliance
7. The Consequences of War Against Terrorism
8. The Influence of Domestic Issues on American Foreign Policy
9.The Outlook for Japan’s Economy
10. The Future of the U.S. Dollar: Alternative Scenarios

That the Bilderbergers—essentially a talking shop for European and North American power players—are interested in discussing the current meltdown of the European economy should come as no surprise, especially as the group’s attendee list includes many of the key financiers and string pullers who helped steer Europe into the crisis in the first place. Past attendees of the meeting include current EU President Herman Van Rompuy who got the job as the first non-elected head of the undemocratic European Union after a special wine and dine session with Bilderberg steering committee members. Last year he heralded the beginning of global government, praising the increased role of G20 in dealing with the global financial crisis. Other key Bilderbergers include Jean-Claude Trichet, who, as head of the European Central Bank, was instrumental in helping to craft the current European bailout which itself is designed to incentivize the bankruptcy of Europe. Trichet, too, also recentlycalled for global government to regulate the world economic meltdown that his fellow Bilderbergers helped to create.

Those familiar with the Bilderberg group’s long-cherished dream of achieving global government through the creation of an international financial framework will be unsurprised to see that a debate on the question “Do We Have Institutions to Deal With the World Economy?” is the third order of business at this year’s meeting. Nor will it be a surprise when the question is inevitably answered with the standard globalist line that international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank need to be “strengthened” and even given enhanced regulatory powers as a result of the crisis they have brought about, exactly as Bilderberg observers have been predicting for years. Indeed, as Estulin himself notes in his latest book, Shadow Masters, former U.S. Undersecretary of State George Ball expressed the ambition of the globalists in an address to the 1968 Bilderberg meeting in Mont Tremblant when he stated that they were interested in developing a “world company” to take over the “archaic political structure of nation states”

Other items on the agenda are exactly in line with the issues and plans made at last year’s Bilderberg and those ideas debated at last year’s G20 Finance Ministers meeting, both of which Estulin was able to infiltrate with his inside sources. The fact that the Iran-Russia alliance is on this year’s agenda is doubly telling, not only because a strike against Iran was on the table at this year’s Trilateral Commission meeting, but because, as Estulin notes in today’s interview, it indicates that the real object of the Bilderbergers’ aggression against Iran is the destabilization of Russia, a country that has traditionally been a thorn in the side of the globalists.

Perhaps the only thing that is surprising about this year’s leaked agenda is that the secretive group, which has gone to great length to conceal itself from media and public scrutiny, has failed to take precautions to prevent Estulin and his sources from acquiring the information yet again. “I’m a little bit disappointed in the Bilderbergers,” he said on the line from Spain, where he currently resides. “I would think they would have taken certain precautions and measures, especially coming to my part of the world.”

While the agenda is only a guide for the larger group discussions and the real decision-making takes place among the core members of the group behind closed doors, it does serve as an indicator of the issues and events that are preoccupying the globalists at this sensitive stage of their operation, just as they begin to realize their dream of instituting global government by manufacturing a global depression. Even as these plans begin to come to fruition, the people of Iceland, Greece, and other developed countries are beginning to rise up en masse to throw off the yoke of financial oppression and key Bilderbergers are openly talking of their fears of a global political awakening.

This year’s conference marks a new level of exposure and opposition to the Bilderberg group itself. Daniel Estulin will be making an historic speech to the European parliament on June 1st along with Mario Borghezio, Nigel Farage, and other key MEPs. Then Charlie Skelton, reporting once again for the UK’s Guardian newspaper, will be taking part in a mass counter-conference where those opposed to the Bilderbergers and their secret proceedings will gather to draw attention to the group.