The idea of issuing Eurobonds in order to deal with the sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone had been widely discussed but, despite earlier speculation, was not on the agenda of last week’s meeting of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris – a meeting that was for the purpose of addressing the eurozone crisis.

Many politicians and commentators had expressed the view that the Eurobond route – effectively meaning the pooling of sovereign debt within the eurozone – was the only way out of the current crisis, but the concept of Eurobonds is not a popular one, particularly in Germany, where there is little sympathy for such a structural sharing of the debt as things stand. Moreover, Mrs Merkel was aware that any succumbing to the Eurobond route in Paris could place her coalition government in serious jeopardy, such is the strength of feeling in her homeland.

The result of the Paris meeting was to send the euro ball back into national governments’ courts, demanding that each eurozone nation must control its own economy more efficiently, while proposing closer economic and budgetary integration within the eurozone and raising European revenue through a new tax on financial transactions.

The Paris meeting was held against the background of a warning in The Financial Times by the new International Monetary Fund chief, Christine Lagarde, that austerity measures aimed at tackling debt must be balanced, where possible, with measures to support economic growth.

A new financial transactions tax, such as was proposed in Paris, could indeed shift some of the pressure away from ordinary citizens, but, then again, increased costs do tend to be passed on to the public; it is hardly a ‘growth’ measure, more a way of putting money aside for further bailouts across the eurozone. Indeed, the Irish Finance Minister, Michael Noonan, was quick to reject the proposal, objecting in particular to the idea that there could be a transactions tax in Dublin but not in London. There were also negative vibes coming from Frankfurt. Moreover, the proposal of Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy last week that there should be a biannual heads of government meeting to coordinate economic matters was not a particularly inspiring suggestion and certainly stock markets subsequently showed that investors were not impressed.

Many factors lie behind the current eurozone problems, but one is fundamental. If one wants a single currency, one really needs a single government – or as close to that as possible. Thus, the eurozone crisis, of necessity, is giving a further impetus to a federal EU, beyond that already given by the Lisbon Treaty. The

BISHOp JEFFERTS SCHORI’S comparison of Zimbabwe with San Joaquin and Fort Worth is disgraceful and outrageous (Gazette report, 12th August, page 1).

In 2007 and 2008, the Diocesan Conventions of San Joaquin and Fort Worth voted overwhelmingly to leave the US Episcopal Church ( TEC). In both cases, the bishops made it clear that any parishes (seven in San Joaquin and eight in Fort Worth) wishing to stay with TEC could do so and retain all their property.

The Constitution and Canons of TEC do not allow metropolitical powers to the presiding Bishop. Nevertheless, she interfered in both dioceses by inhibiting the bishops through a misuse of Title IV (originally passed to inhibit bishops who became Roman Catholics).

The Standing Committees (the ecclesiastical authority in the diocese in the absence of a bishop) objected. She declared them deposed and called Special Conventions with the small minorities of continuing TEC members.

Rival bishops and Standing Committees were elected so that, masquerading as the true dioceses, they could sue Bishops Schofield and Iker, as well as vestries, individuals and parishes (not the diocese – that would be an admission that the plaintiffs were not the true diocesan authorities). Iker is even being sued for using his own episcopal seal!

There have been no physical violence, beatings, murders or threats made by either Bishop Iker or Bishop Schofield. They have acted in accordance with their own diocesan Canons and procedures.

To compare these godly pastors to Kunonga is propaganda worthy of Goebbels.

The presiding Bishop, on the other hand, is relentlessly suing congregations for their buildings and property, instigating and funding vindictive lawsuits and even refusing to allow parishes to buy their own properties.

Bill Atkins (Canon) Mohill Rectory Mohill Co. Leitrim 

Human sexuality