Officially it was all smiles. Under azure blue skies Greece looked good. It has just borrowed successfully from foreign investors for the first time in four years. And the economics are certainly more encouraging than they were 18 months ago when the German chancellor last dared venture this far south.

This was the story she wanted to focus on as she met Greek entrepreneurs and the man who did much to implement her vision of economic rigour, which Greece had to adopt to stop the eurozone falling apart: prime minister Antonis Samaras. "I firmly believe that after a very, very tough phase, this country harbours boundless possibilities still to be exploited," Merkel told the businessmen.

It was all a far cry from October 2012, when riot police clashed with protesters who compared her to Hitler. This time there were no "Get out Merkel" signs or demonstrators dressed in Nazi garb, or thousands denouncing the "mother of austerity" because Greece's fragile governing coalition, in its determination to welcome the leader, banned public gatherings – at least in Syntagma square – from taking place.

An attempt by trade unionists, leftists and state sector workers to demonstrate against policies that have ruined much of the country's middle class was kept in check by a security cordon around the capital. During her seven-hour stay – a visit that took place against the background of a bomb attack outside the Bank of Greece – 5,000 heavily armed police officers kept watch over the city centre.

That Athens is no longer hostile territory for Merkel cannot be denied – even if polls show the vast majority of Greeks still have a "negative view" of her.

We live in a post-democratic EU super-state. The voluntary abandonment of democratic principles as seen in the so-called 'Ukraine crisis' by our decision makers is only the most recent example. (The unpopular Yanukovich government was facing re-election in a year and we should have insisted on the democratic process).

What lies behind the erosion of the rule of law is the disdain with which our Western leaders have treated democracy since their total adherence to liberal economic beliefs. this all started more than 30 years ago and we should remember that Western states only began to accumulate debt in the late 70's and early 80's. The total and unquestionable belief that our way of life is of a divine status is nothing short of a new form of 'economic totalitarianism'.

With Shengen, the Euro and austerity plans our governance has sought to cement a kind of eternal and unbreakable domination over the people all justified by the use of the word 'freedom'. Today, people have naturally began to see through this temporary madness and can no longer respect the 'laws' that are handed down from the top.

The aim of the European post-democratic super state is too bring us all into a free trade agreement with the US that would effectively seal the running of our lives by International corporations that pay no taxes.

And what about Ukraine...The Yanukovych impeachment occurred with the flagrant violations of the Article 111 of Ukraine's Constitution and transition to the previous version of was in a blatant breaches of procedure too. (Thus, Rada action can be regarded either as abolishing the previous decision of the constitutional court, or as adoption all amendments to boost the Parliament's powers in ignoring the constitutional provision about the necessity of the conclusion by the constitutional court. Everything's illegal). And the dismissal of the constitutional judges appointed under the president's quota again broke the provisions of Article 112. In addition, "the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the decree instructed the Prosecutor General of Ukraine to open criminal proceedings regarding all judges, who, in the opinion of the people's deputies of Ukraine, were guilty in the Decision of the constitutional Court of Ukraine on September 30, 2010 № 20-RP/2010" (the case on compliance of the procedure of amending the Constitution of Ukraine)! Do you see that. MPs did define the degree of guilt and also pushed to prosecute judges for their decisions. IMHO,it contradicts the basic principles of the separation of powers, logic and even common sense. But where is the conclusion of Venice Commission about those facts? Of course it will never appear.

"Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary general of the 47-nation Council of Europe, made his assessment before tensions in eastern Ukraine rose over the weekend and before the council's parliamentary assembly voted last Thursday to suspend Russia's voting rights over its annexation of Crimea."....Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary general of the 47-nation Council of Europe, made an assessment before tensions in eastern Ukraine rose over the weekend and before the council's parliamentary assembly voted last Thursday to suspend Russia's voting rights over its annexation of Crimea. Jagland argues that a lack of human rights in Ukraine has paved the way for Russia's actions. Is it not a bit odd for the western press to be reporting on it now? Perhaps it did not at the time 'fit' the Western media narrative to blindly support the Kiev putsch and its America backers. Much if not all of what Mr Jagland is very pertinent to what is now occurring in Ukraine and it was a very stupid move for the council to throw out Russia - a move they will and should regret... The EU is not an entity, and member states are not entities when it comes to foreign policy. The same with PACE. If you read how they condemn Russia for refusal to recognize Junta (even if Junta were legal, still it would be Russia's sovereign right to recognize it or not), and how they blame Yanu for shooting despite abound evidence that putschists did the shooting, and obviously before any court decision - you can guess there is no one lawyer in Europe.

The breaking up of the banks into smaller entities is one way of limiting the number of clients affected by a bank closure as a result of bad bank management. Also smaller size banks would allow the government to guarantee all deposits of any failed bank. This a case of small being better than big. It is also time for Britain to have a national bank which belongs to the nation and guarantees all deposits. Private and government banking should run side by side. I’ve got a far better idea on how to deal with it which would be far more market-orientated. You see although the monopolization of the banking sector, or indeed any sector, is bad. The mighty hand of government diktat is far worse, and we could see massive industries at the mercy of a populist political leader where it would be such that investors would shy way from Britain and move their operations offshore.  So what to do? Well consider what a monopoly is. Once you get more than a certain share of the market you make money in an anti-market way, as in effectively by force. The amount you make on top of the market value for the work you have done depends on the market percentage share, but it is also dependent on the type of industry, like say in the energy market, if you control the distribution of the product then that gives you a license to print money.

So what we need to do is this. We should establish what this extra profit amounts to. It could be approximated using a mathematical equation to model market data. So what you do is you apply a tax, and that tax levels it up, but you could decide how much you deal with it in an easy way, just by setting the tax rates. The tax money would not go to the government as government spending is like chucking it in the bin. Instead you use it as a way to provide tax relief to small business. In actual fact what you would really need is something where there is a significant, but not massive incentive to break up yourself. There would be a shareholder interest in it, but how you do it is not up to the government or even that you would have to, so you could just carry on but pay the tax. This means the system allows for economy of scale to benefit the consumer as well. What I’m saying is use tax to iron out monopoly distortion of the market, so the best man wins.

It's astonishing that the media in the west portraits the ethnic Russian Ukrainians as 'separatists', while at the same time the people that protested a month ago in Kiev were portrayed as exercising their 'democratic rights to protest' (and violently overthrow the elected government while at it). ...The hypocrisy in western media surprises with a new low with each passing 'report'...
The Global financial structure is based on a Ponzi system, it needs wars and conflicts to sustain itself and distract from the actualities of international relations - the lobbied think tanks and their media cheer-leaders focus on what will soften public opinion.  Right now it's interesting to see Western media accuse Russia of precisely what West did in Kiev i.e. deploy provocateurs and snipers from Right Sector and Svoboda to push a coup into place, but this backfired as not all Ukranians support fascists and wanted a referendum  This leaves the EU in a difficult conundrum, does it support the ballot box or the bullet?   The EU didn't support the ballot box in Kiev, in which they made a deal with the democratically elected President of Ukraine, then allowed it to be completely overturned when the fascists overthrew him. Therefore, it's almost certainly the case that they won't support the democratic process in these other areas too. Consider, for a second, the notion that the EU did support the ballot box. There's a good chance that people would vote to stay in Ukraine, so why don't the EU just agree to the referendum and surprise Russia? Seemingly, they're scared of democracy when there's Right.... now it's interesting to see Western media accuse Russia of precisely what West did in Kiev ie deploy provocateurs and snipers from Right Sector and Svoboda to push a coup into place, but this backfired as not all Ukranians support fascists and wanted a referendum

... Patriotism takes the form of ultra nationalism when a people are suppressed and their political system is manipulated as Russia has been doing in Ukraine. This is the result of Russia's installation of puppet presidents and poisoning of those not appropriately aligned. Anyone with half a brain can see from where the interference comes....hence it won't work in their favor....well... Yatseniuk said yesterday, at Donetsk, as the Ukrainian military and police special forces defied him, that he would allow referendums in Eastern Ukraine. Today he has already forgotten that, and proceeds with "anti-terrorist" operations, after he was lucky enough to find at least some soldiers willing to join the Blackwater mercenaries in shooting civilians. It goes to show that he is a far worse and dangerous liar than the average politician of the West, and also will not allow anyone else use the same methods that brought him to power.
I wish good luck to the people of East Ukraine who chose to fight against the illegal fascist government of Kiev.

In Crimea they were offered the chance to return to Ukraine. It will not be as easy in Eastern Ukraine, which is why nobody is sure if Putin wants it or not. I am sure he has a plan for both scenarios. Interestingly he promised to guarantee three languages in Crimea, whereas the diabolical administration in Kiev promised to ban Russian the moment it came to power. You can be sure that whatever plan Putin follows it is more considered and thought through than the Western backed largely fascist regime in Kiev.

On 11 March 2014 the FCA published MS14-1: General insurance add-ons market study: Provisional findings and proposed remedies.

This was the first OFT-style Market Study carried out by the FCA under its new competition powers, and in pursuit of its new competition objective.

The subject was the sale of General Insurance (GI) ‘add-ons’: insurance products sold alongside – and at the same time as – other retail or financial products. The Market Study looked at five such products: travel, gadget, GAP, home emergency, and personal accident insurance; in each case, comparing the details for add-on sales and stand-alone sales. From this the FCA sought to extrapolate broader conclusions about the add-on sales mechanism and the GI market in general; it also noted that some products fared better (travel) and worse (GAP and personal accident) than others.

The background to the Market Study was the 2012 FSA study into the sale of general insurance add-ons; 2013 FCA Thematic Reviews of motor legal expenses insurance and mobile phone insurance; OFT’s review of extended warranties; and various FSA actions involving the misselling of insurance, including PPI.
 

Preliminary conclusions
 

The FCA found that competition in the sale of GI add-ons was not effective, and there was a “clear case” for intervention by the regulator.

The main evidence for consumer detriment was the difference in the claims ratios (i.e. the value of claims paid out as a percentage of premiums paid) for similar products, depending on whether they had been sold as add-ons, or stand-alone policies.

The FCA estimated that consumer ‘overpayment’ could be as high as £216m per year.

Research into add-on sales suggested various possible causes for the failure of market forces to keep prices competitive:

* consumers are sometimes not aware that alternatives (either stand-alone, or other add-on bundles) are available, and are more likely to buy the first insurance product they are presented with;

* where consumers are aware of the availability of alternatives, they sometimes struggle to compare products, and calculate the different costs; in particular, consumers often underestimate the annual cost of a policy when only a monthly fee is quoted;

* consumers might also be dissuaded from shopping around by the ‘cognitive’ and ‘action costs’ involved: once they have made the effort of buying a primary product, they do not care to expend the additional mental effort involved in  comparing different insurance deals as well;

* the ‘endowment effect’, whereby consumers contemplating a new primary purchase are more inclined to buy insurance to protect it;

* buyers of add-on products tend to have worse understanding of product coverage, and are sometimes even unaware that they own a particular insurance product; both factors make it less likely that consumers will claim under a policy, which in turn drives down the claims ratio figure;

* buyers of add-ons were more likely to be vulnerable to ‘soft’ pressures, including the apparent trustworthiness of salespersons, especially where sales took place face-to-face. (However, consumers in general did not consider that they had been “pressured” into buying.)

The FCA concluded from the above that add-on sellers were often making (sometimes extremely large) profits by taking advantage of consumer behaviour, and the point-of-sale advantage, rather than by improving their products or prices in response to effective market competition. In particular, add-on insurance prices were not constrained by competition from stand-alone insurance products (except travel).

Although the focus had been on the effectiveness of competition, and not on assessing firms’ conduct, the FCA nevertheless uncovered some cases of non-compliance with ICOBS. No evidence of actual misselling was found, although the problems with the add-on sales process identified above could increase the risk of consumers ending up with unsuitable insurance products.

Matters were slightly complicated by consumers’ own declared satisfaction with insurance products (although understanding of policies was often poor), and with the convenience of the add-on sales process.

The FCA did not find evidence of any major barriers to entry in the market.

Beyond the add-on process

Some of the FCA’s findings went beyond the add-on sales process and concerned GI sales more generally:

The FCA considered that even stand-alone GAP and personal accident insurance was often still very poor value for money; it also had wider concerns about how well consumers can assess the value of different insurance products. There was a further concern with poor consumer understanding of policy details.

On the other hand, the FCA is aware that too much information can also be unhelpful to consumers - “disclosure must be smart”.

Proposed remedies

The FCA proposed the following remedies, which will be the subject of a subsequent consultation:

* A mandatory deferred opt-in for add-on sales of GAP insurance; i.e., a car salesman can offer a GAP policy at the time of selling a car, but cannot conclude the contract there and then; instead, the consumer will need to confirm the policy later on. The FCA intends to introduce this remedy as soon as possible.

* A ban on opt-outs (e.g. pre-ticked boxes) in GI add-on sales processes.

* A requirement for firms to publish claims ratio data. (This relates also to the FCA’s concerns with poor value stand-alone insurance products, described above.)

* Further work on how to improve the presentation of information about add-ons on price comparison websites; this could either involve a “market-led solution” or new FCA rules.

* The FCA will also “continue to consider what other remedies may be appropriate.”

 

Next steps

The FCA invited Market Study participants and other interested parties to contribute their views on its preliminary findings and proposed remedies; but these will also be the subject of a formal consultation paper “before the end of the year”.

 

Ukraine's foreign minister blamed Russia for the unrest, and demanded that Moscow end what he called "provocative actions" by its agents in eastern Ukraine.

Andrii Deshchytsia, acting foreign minister, said he had spoken in a phone call with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.

The occupations are a potential flashpoint because if the militants are killed or hurt by Ukrainian forces, that could prompt the Kremlin to intervene to protect the local Russian-speaking population – a repeat of the scenario in the Crimea region when Russian troops were sent in.

Russia denies providing any support to the militants, who have seized four government buildings in the east of the former Soviet republic, apparently emboldened by Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region last month.

In a further sign of the increasing tensions, Ukraine's state energy company, Naftohaz, has suspended payments to Russia for deliveries of gas until price negotiations between the two countries are concluded.

Earlier this month, Russia’s state energy company Gazprom increased the gas price for Ukrainian consumers from £160 to £290 per 1,000 cubic metres (tcm), saying Kiev was no longer eligible for previous discounts.

Ukraine is believed to have already stopped making payments, following its reported failure to pay an instalment worth almost £300 million earlier this month to Gazprom.

Andriy Kobolev, the chief executive of Naftohaz, said the increased price Russia was demanding for its gas was unjustified and unacceptable.

“The question of repayment of debt is directly linked to the maintenance of gas prices at the level of the first quarter," Mr Kobolev said, in reference to the original price of £160 per tcm.

He added, “We see no reason to revise the price. We consider the price at around £290 as non-market, unjustified and unacceptable.

“Accordingly, we have suspended payments for the period of the price negotiations.”

Previously, Ukraine paid a discounted price in return for leasing Russia its Black Sea fleet headquarters in Crimea.

Russia revoked that agreement after annexing the Crimean peninsula last month.

The EU's top court has declared "invalid" an EU law requiring telecoms firms to store citizens' communications data for up to two years. The EU Data Retention Directive was adopted in 2006. The European Court of Justice says it violates two basic rights - respect for private life and protection of personal data.

The EU-wide ruling was prompted by Austrian and Irish complaints.

The 28-nation EU is currently drafting a new data protection law.

The ECJ ruling says the 2006 directive allows storage of data on a person's identity, the time of that person's communication, the place from which the communication took place and the frequency of that person's communications.

"By requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data," the court in Luxembourg ruled.

The UK government says it is carefully considering the implications of the ruling, the BBC's Chris Morris reports.

Austrian and Irish courts had asked the ECJ to decide whether the directive complied with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Privacy v security debate

The judges acknowledged that data retention was justified in the fight against serious crime and to safeguard public security. But they argued that the directive was disproportionate.

They also said use of the data without an individual's knowledge "is likely to generate in the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance".

The directive does not provide sufficient safeguards against possible abuse of personal data, the judges said.

And there was insufficient clarity concerning the basis for holding data for a minimum of six months or the maximum of two years, they argued.

Responding to the ruling, a British government spokesman said the retention of communications data was absolutely fundamental to allowing law enforcement authorities to investigate crime and ensure national security.

"We cannot be in a position where service providers are unable to retain this data," the spokesman said.

The European Commission says it too is assessing the ruling. It said there had to be a proper balance between security and fundamental rights.