FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

No argument from me regardin' the profligacy of Congress, c. i. - thats a real sore point here, too. Pork, mismanagement, runaway entitlements, and waste are the biggest problems our government faces, and nobody seems inclined to really step up, take responsibility, and do somethin' corrective. I get real upset about that.

Now, I just don't agree that a formulized, standardized, wholly objective methodology for determinin' ability to pay is subjective. Havin' read the legislation itself, and havin' followed the debates in both Houses, as opposed to what the punditocracy of either camp says about it, I note as well there are numerous safeguards, checks, and controls. I see the law as closin' long-abused loopholes, and believe it will be of overall beneficial impact upon the National Solvency. I believe as well that in certain respects, it doesn't go far enough; what was weakened to placate the Democrats bothers me, but for now, I can live with it. There's always the hope the results of the '06 and '08 elections will serve further to lessen the Democrats' ability to hinder needed reforms.

Have you talked to any New Yorkers yet?

Problems with the new bankruptcy law.
********************************
1. Subjects Debtors to a "Means Test" that Fails to Screen for Abuse and Instead Penalizes Honest Debtors by Imposing Additional Costs and Filing Burdens
The bill amends Code § 707(b) by adopting a rigid formula to determine whether a debtor is presumed ineligible for a chapter 7 discharge.2 Unlike the present system that screens for "substantial abuse" by comparing the debtor's actual living expenses to income, the means-test formula uses pre-determined budget amounts based on the Internal Revenue Service's National Standards and Local Standards.3 For example, if the IRS Local Standard sets a debtor's monthly housing and utilities allowance at $756, this is the expense amount used in the means-test formula even if the debtor's actual rent and utilities are $950 per month.4 Similarly, a debtor whose actual food bill is $350 per month because of a special diet prescribed by her doctor for health reasons will be limited to the IRS standard of $196 per month.5

On the equation's income side, the formula uses the debtor's average prior 6 months' income to project what can be paid creditors under the plan.6 This "current monthly income" is used even if some or all of the income counted during the six-month test period is no longer available because of job loss, temporary disability or divorce. Trying to fix this problem requires the debtor to incur unnecessary litigation costs, petitioning the court to ignore the income definition.

Ironically, since the formula compares presumed income and expenses with the amount of unsecured debts, debtors who have large amounts of credit card and other unsecured debt are more likely to flunk the means test and will be permitted to obtain a chapter 7 discharge.7 In addition, since the debtor is allowed to deduct on the expense side the actual amounts payable on priority and secured debts (including for example the monthly installment payment on a luxury auto), and actual amounts for "Other Necessary Expenses" listed in the IRS collections standards manual,8 the so-called "high-rollers" that proponents claim the bill was aimed at will likely escape scrutiny under the means test, particularly since they have the means to litigate application of the presumption.

As another example that the bill sponsors are not interested in curbing real abuse, the bill does not change the current limitation in § 707(b) that the abuse provisions apply only to debtors who have primarily consumer debts. Why exclude from the means test those primarily with business debts, such as corporate executives, or celebrity or sports figures? Even if the means test does not presume abuse, the bill changes current law by permitting creditors and other parties in interest to file motions seeking a dismissal of the case under the general abuse provisions in § 707(b) if the debtor's income exceeds the median income.9

The bill will create much litigation on the front end of bankruptcy cases, with hearings on challenges to the application of the means-test presumption presumably deferred until after the meeting of creditors. While debtors with real ability to pay should make their best efforts to do so, the means test does a poor job of finding those debtors and increases costs for all other debtors.

2. Low-Income Debtors Have "Safe Harbor" from Means Test, But Are Subject to Increased Costs and Filing Requirements, Including Credit Counseling and Education
Debtors with incomes below the applicable median family income will not be subjected to the means test. The bill provides that the bankruptcy judge, trustee, or other parties in interest are prohibited from filing a motion seeking to apply the means test if the debtor's current monthly income multiplied by 12 is equal to or less than the highest median family income based on family size for the debtor's state as reported by the Bureau of the Census.10

For debtors below the median income, the court may still dismiss or, with the debtor's consent, convert the case to chapter 13 if the granting of the discharge would amount to an "abuse." Unlike debtors above the median income, this can only be done on the court's own motion or the motion of the trustee, not a creditor or other party in interest.

Though the means test does not apply to low-income debtors, they are not exempt from a whole host of new requirements that apply to all consumer debtors, such as credit counseling and education, tax return and other filings, and random audits.

Credit Counseling and Education
The bill will require all debtors in chapter 7 and chapter 13 cases, including low-income debtors, to obtain pre-bankruptcy credit counseling as a condition of filing eligibility and post-bankruptcy education as a condition for discharge.11 Debtors will be required to file a certificate from an approved non-profit credit counseling agency stating that the debtor has been provided a "briefing" on credit counseling options and assistance in conducting a budget analysis during the 180-day period prior to the bankruptcy filing. If a debt repayment plan is prepared by the counseling agency, a copy must be filed with the court along with the certificate.

Forcing all debtors to obtain credit counseling, even those who are hopelessly insolvent and have no ability to form a repayment plan, will do little to increase the payment of consumer debt or reduce the number of bankruptcy filings. While the requirement may simply delay the inevitable in most cases, it could subject some debtors to the deceptive practices and excessive costs of certain low-quality credit counseling "mills" who would target consumers seeking bankruptcy relief. NCLC and the Consumer Federation of America recently released a report on the credit counseling industry that describes these abuses.12

The bill also requires debtors to complete a personal financial management course.13 Code sections 727(a) and 1328 are amended so that debtors who fail to complete the course will be denied a discharge.14 Though well-designed and implemented educational programs can help some debtors avoid future financial problems, such programs do not currently exist (with a few notable exceptions),15 and there is no reason to believe that quality programs will be created since the legislation provides no funding for such programs. In fact, most credit counseling agencies today have cut back significantly on education programs due to financial concerns.16 While it would be far more sensible to delay this requirement's implementation until the United States Trustee's office completes a study on pilot test programs, the education requirements take effect immediately upon passage.17

The bill has a limited exception, permitting waiver of the pre-bankruptcy credit counseling requirement based on "exigent circumstances,"18 and the bill specifies that the counseling services may be provided by telephone or over the Internet. However, there are no similar exceptions for the post-bankruptcy education requirement. This is likely to prove a particular hardship for rural debtors, the homebound, and debtors who will lose wages or incur daycare costs to attend a required education program. There is also little provision made in the bill for families with limited financial resources to afford these programs in addition to their bankruptcy filing and counsel fees.19

The bill will most certainly impose a difficult burden on the United States Trustee's office to provide oversight over these agencies and protect debtors from consumer scams. Regretfully, some of the less reputable counseling agencies, particularly those that will not be approved by the United States Trustee's office to provide services, will still view the bill's requirements as a marketing opportunity and attempt to profit off debtors seeking bankruptcy relief.20

Tax Return Filings, Income Statements and Pay Stubs
Various provisions of the bill require that tax returns be filed with taxing authorities and the court.21 The debtor is also required to provide copies of tax returns to creditors when requested. No provision is made for low-income individuals who may have no legal obligation under the Tax Code to file returns. Failure to file the returns will result in automatic dismissal of cases,22 the denial of chapter 13 confirmation,23 and the denial of discharge. 24

The debtor must also provide copies of pay stubs or other evidence of payment from an employer for income received within 60 days of the bankruptcy filing. The debtor must prepare a statement listing the debtor's monthly net income, showing an itemization of how the amount was calculated and a statement that discloses any "reasonably anticipated" income and expenses for the one-year period following the bankruptcy filing. In chapter 13 cases, the debtor will be required to file an initial detailed statement of income and expenses based on the preceding tax year, and a similar statement for each year during the plan.25 In chapter 7 cases, the debtor must prepare and file a statement as to the calculations under the means test (which is served on all creditors) even if the means test does not apply because the debtor is below the median family income.

Audits
The bill provides for random audits of a significant number of debtors.26 There will be a random selection process providing for the audit of at least 1 in every 250 cases and a targeted selection process for debtors whose schedules "reflect greater than average variances" from the local statistical norm.

No provision is made for the costs of audits, loss of wages to attend an audit, or the attorney fees that might be applicable to representation during an audit. How low-income debtors who have just scraped together enough money to pay fees for credit counseling, the bankruptcy filing fee, a financial management course, and representation for the initial bankruptcy filing will now find money to pay their attorney for representation in the audit remains a mystery.

To compound the matter, the bill's many new requirements imposed on the court system and the United States Trustee's office, and the cost of the audits themselves, will almost certainly require an increase in the bankruptcy-filing fee.27 And bankruptcy remains under this bill the only federal court proceeding in which a poor person cannot obtain a waiver of the filing fee.28

3. Requires Stricter Scrutiny of Low-Income Debtors' Expenses in Chapter 13 Than Higher Income Debtors and Makes Some Debtors Too Rich for Ch. 7 and Too Poor for Ch. 13.
The bill amends § 1325(b) of the Code by replacing the existing chapter 13 disposable-income test with the means test. However, perhaps due to a drafting error, the means test is only applicable in chapter 13 cases for debtors whose income is above the median family income. This means that for higher income debtors, monthly budget payments on many secured debts, priority debts, and other expenses allowed under the means test will be deemed reasonable for chapter 13 plan confirmation. On the other hand, lower income debtors will need to prove that all of their expenses are reasonably necessary for the maintenance and support of the debtor and the debtor's family. This creates the absurd result that a trustee may not be able to challenge a higher-income debtor's mortgage payment on a vacation home under the means test, since it is an allowed expense for secured debt, but would have the ability to question the reasonableness of all expenditures of a low-income debtor.

The bill also leaves unanswered the fate of a debtor who initially flunks the means test, thereafter files or converts to a chapter 13, but then is unable to obtain plan confirmation or has the chapter 13 dismissed because of inability to make plan payments. For debtors who are just above the median income and struggling to make payments under a plan crafted with unrealistic budget amounts using the means test formula, this is not an unlikely outcome. Under existing law, the debtor would be permitted to convert back or refile a new chapter 7 case. A strict reading of the bill, however, would require a court to reinstate the means test thereby denying the debtor the opportunity to obtain a discharge. The debtor is effectively shut out of the bankruptcy system, unable to obtain relief under either chapter 13 or chapter 7.29

4. Erodes Bankruptcy's Fresh Start by Making More Debts Nondischargeable in Both Chapters 7 and 13.
The bill contains provisions that would expand the presumption of fraud related to nondischargeability of credit card debts.30 Fraud would be presumed for debtors that incur $500 for luxury goods and services within 90 days or $750 in cash advances within 70 days before bankruptcy.31 These provisions will most heavily burden low-income debtors who do not have the financial resources to overcome the presumption and debtors with genuine financial emergencies who do not have the ability to plan the date for their filing to place purchases or cash advances outside the extended presumption period.32

The bill also eliminates the chapter 13 "superdischarge" for certain debts.33 It will make debts incurred by fraud, as provided under current § 523(a)(2) and (a)(4), and unscheduled debts under current § 523(a)(3), nondischargeable in chapter 13 cases. It also creates a new type of chapter 13 nondischargeability for debts based on willful or malicious injury.34 Another section of the bill makes certain tax debts nondischargeable in chapter 13.35

The new chapter 13 fraud exception will exacerbate current problems debtors face in chapter 7 cases with certain credit card companies and other creditors who file meritless claims of fraud hoping to strong-arm a reaffirmation agreement, knowing the debtor will want to avoid significant litigation costs to defend the action. Low-income families in chapter 13 cannot afford the defense costs in these nondischargeability cases when their income is fully committed to necessities, mortgage payments, and plan payments, putting further stress on the feasibility of chapter 13 plans. A finding of nondischargeability of a substantial credit card debt will almost certainly be the death knell of the chapter 13 case, particularly if the debtor is not permitted to amend the plan to provide for favored treatment of the nondischargeable debt based on § 1322(b)(1). Not surprisingly, the same bill that on the one hand pushes more debtors into chapter 13 at the same time makes it more difficult for them to stay in chapter 13.

5. Promotes Predatory Lending by Encouraging Creditors to Take Liens on Household Goods of Nominal Value.
Prior to the enactment of the Code in 1978, finance companies often made small loans at high interest rates that were secured by the borrower's household goods. Although the goods were of nominal value, the security interest was a valuable collection tool for the lender due to the leverage that came with the threat of repossession.36 In enacting the Code, Congress recognized the true value of such liens and gave debtors the right to avoid non-purchase money liens on exempt "household goods" under § 522(f)(1)(B).

Current law does not define "household goods" for purposes of § 522(f) lien avoidance, though most courts consider that it includes certain basic items as clothing, furniture, and other personal property "kept in or around the home and used to facilitate the day to day living of the debtor and the debtor's dependents."37

Now Congress plans to turn back the clock and change the lien avoidance provisions in a way that encourages more predatory lending practices. The bill contains a very narrow definition of "household goods" that would be applicable under § 522(f) in all states in lien avoidance proceedings.38 It expressly does not include any work of art (unless by or of the debtor or a relative of the debtor), no matter how small the value, and electronic equipment other than one television, one radio, one personal computer, and one VCR. The Conference Report added some limited additional protection by providing that other electronic equipment totaling $500 or less in the aggregate will be "household goods," but this probably will not deter lenders who rely upon inflated valuations of the goods.39

Non-purchase money liens on items excluded under the new definition will no longer be avoidable. Undoubtedly this will lead to more aggressive finance company policies of taking liens that have threat value in bankruptcy ?- and more reaffirmations will inevitably result.

6. Creates New Creditor Opportunities for Reaffirmation Abuses by Weakening Current Debtor Protections and Giving Creditors Safe Harbor from Liability
The bill contains amendments to current § 524 of the Code that purport to protect debtors from reaffirmation abuses by creditors.40 Unfortunately, the changes will do far more harm than good. Since creditors will have substantially more leverage to obtain reaffirmations based on other bill provisions (discussed below), this weakening of current legal protections will have a devastating impact on the fresh start.

The bill will require that debtors be provided with a reaffirmation disclosure statement. This lengthy statement contains little in actual substantive or useful information. And for those disclosures that could be meaningful, such as the "annual percentage rate" and repayment schedule, creditors are given much latitude in how these terms are disclosed, making it virtually impossible to prove inaccuracies.41 Even worse, despite the well-known abuses by department store creditors in coercing reaffirmations based on inflated values for secured household goods, the new disclosure form does not even require that the creditor to disclose the current value of the secured property.42 The form only requires a listing of the items and "their original purchase price," or the "original amount of the loan" for a nonpurchase-money security interest. In addition, several of the disclosures, such as the "annual percentage rate," assume that the underlying credit contract will remain in effect upon reaffirmation.

By far, the most troublesome aspect of the reaffirmation provisions is the broad safe harbor afforded creditors. The bill provides that the new disclosure requirements and the current disclosures under § 524(c) are satisfied if the disclosures "are given in good faith." A creditor can even accept payments made under a non-compliant reaffirmation, either before or after the filing of the reaffirmation, as long as the creditor "believes in good faith" that the agreement is effective.43 Of course, litigation costs are greatly multiplied whenever the debtor has to prove, as a condition of recovery, that the creditor acted in bad faith.

7. Undermines Debtors' Ability to Save Homes and Cars in Chapter 13
Numerous provisions in the bill will make chapter 13 a much less viable option for debtors attempting to save their homes from foreclosure or cars from repossession. By greatly limiting debtors' ability to cramdown secured claims in bankruptcy to the value of the collateral, the bill will force debtors to direct more of their limited income to undersecured car loans and department store debts, making it more difficult for them to come up with the money currently being committed under plans to make mortgage payments. Since lower income debtors have tighter budgets, these debtors are likely to be the most seriously affected by the changes.
Cramdown Provisions

The bill provides that a claim based on a purchase money security interest in a motor vehicle acquired within 2 ½ years of the bankruptcy filing cannot be crammed down.44 Other secured debts will be protected from cramdown if any (non-vehicle) collateral is acquired within 1 year of filing. Since some department stores claim to take a security interest in everything purchased with their store card, their entire debts would be treated as secured under this provision if the debtor used the card at all within the 1-year period before filing.

Debtors confronted with the new anti-cramdown provisions might consider redemption under § 722 in a chapter 7 case as an alternative. However, the bill drafters sought to foreclose that option as well by amending § 506(a). The bill requires that the amount of an allowed claim secured by personal property shall be based on the "replacement value" of the collateral, "without deduction for costs of sale or marketing."45 In addition, another section of the bill prohibits redemption in installments.46

Since the amendment to § 506(a) requiring retail value also applies to determinations of allowed secured claims in chapter 13, the ability to cramdown car loans will be further restricted even if the car was purchased more than 2 ½ years before filing (or 1 year before filing for other secured purchases).

Finally, in another provision that will certainly impact low-income debtors and the elderly, mobile home liens will not be subject to cramdown, whether or not the mobile home is attached to real property.47 These liens will have the same protection available to other residential mortgages under § 1322(b)(2) of the Code. At the same time, the anti-modification provision in § 1322(b)(2) is expanded to preclude stripdown of home mortgages when there is any additional property conveyed with the principal residence.48

Ride-Through Provisions
The bill amends § 521(a) of the Code to make clear that the "fourth" option in chapter 7 cases authorized in some circuits, which involves the retention of secured property without reaffirmation by continuing payments, will no longer be permitted.49 The amendment limits a debtor who wishes to retain personal property subject to a purchase money security interest to two options; the debtor must either enter into a reaffirmation agreement with the creditor or redeem the property under § 722. Unlike current law, the bill also provides that the stay is automatically lifted without a hearing, and the secured property is no longer property of the estate, if the debtor does not carry out one of the two options within 45 days of the meeting of creditors.50

This treatment of secured debts is expanded in another provision of the bill. Debtors will be required to file a statement of intention under § 521(a)(2) in both chapter 7 and chapter 13 cases (and chapter 11 if the debtor is an individual) as to all personal property that is either security for a claim or that is subject to an unexpired lease.51 Moreover, the automatic stay is terminated without a hearing (and the property is no longer property of the estate) if the debtor does not surrender or redeem the property, reaffirm the debt, or assume the unexpired lease within 30 days from the date first set for the meeting of creditors. The stay will not be lifted if the statement specifies that the debtor will reaffirm the debt and the creditor refuses to enter into a reaffirmation on the original contract terms.

The combined effect of these provisions restricting cramdown, redemption and ride-through is certain; fewer debtors will be able to use chapter 13 to protect important assets and more debtors filing chapter 7 cases will be forced to enter into reaffirmation agreements. Both of these outcomes run completely counter to the stated goals of Congress in enacting the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. Sadly, debtors emerging from chapter 7 cases who are burdened with reaffirmation payments and new nondischargeable debts (as discussed in Part 1) are not likely to keep up with essential obligations such as child support and housing expenses.

[Note: This analysis of the current bankruptcy bill is not complete. Additional provisions of the bill will be addressed in future updates of this article.]

I suspect this is as well an excellent description of the process behind the fall of the Dollar relative to the Euro. We are a large net importer, and a natuiral consequence of this is the relative fall in our currency, particularly in relation to regions which enjoy a large favorable trade balance with us. Canada and Europe afe both large net exporters in their trade with the U.S.

Certainly our budget deficit contributes to this as well. However, it is worth noting that U.S. public debt as a % of GDP is not particularly high relative to European standards. I believe the Bush administration calculated (rightly or wrongly, as you wish) that they didn't have the political leverage to get both tax reductions and spending cuts during the first term (they risked getting neither and losing the election), and, instead, opted for tax cuts to stimulate growth, leaving the spending cuts for the second term. This appears to be what is happening now and I think it is a reasonable strategy.

Another contributing factor is the very sluggish performance of European economies.

Yeah, I read Rao's whine some time ago - entirely unsurprisin' that bankruptcy attorney types are upset their golden goose is on the grill. Unsurprisin' as well that bankruptcy attorneys are advertisin' and advisin' all over the place for folks to file now, before the law kicks in. Them types are real disturbed at the prospect of havin' to find another way to make a gougin' - excuse me, a livin'. Damn - they might even haftta do some real work for a change insteada just chargin' for filin' routine forms and puttin' in perfunctory appearances at procedural hearin's. How terrible.


Here's a link to that whole article - What's wrong with S. 256, Let Us Count The Ways (Download note: 14 page .pdf file)

This hasn't much to do with the EU though - I think it prolly would be best to split this off into a new topic of its own if its to be pursued.

Yeah, isn't that a shame?

Just to clarify my take on this, before movin' on, a 2002 Harvard Law School study, "Financial Collapse and Class Status - Who Goes Bankrupt (Download Note: approx. 30 page .pdf file) reveals some interestin' facts. The top 3 reasons for personal bankruptcy, comprisin' over 90% of total filin's, are, in order, Job Loss, Medical Crisis, and Divorce. Fair enough, no real surprise there. However, the study found the average - average, not median - individual filin' for personal bankruptcy has after-tax earnin's of $20K or less. Given that, the average filer will not qualify for repayment under the new law, or, in fact, be subject to any change whatsoever compared to pre-legislation-change conditions, period. The people who legitimately merit protection under the law remain protected as before. Those who previously had been able to avail themselves of loopholes to shield themselves from the law, thereby abusin' the law, now will find a free ride much, much harder to grab. All thats changed is that bankruptcy practice has lost some of its career appeal in the legal trade, and skippin' on debt has become a little tougher. All in all, the big losers here are bankrupty attorneys and financially capable, but irresponsible, deadbeats. Interestin', but wholly unsurprisin', to note the folks The Democrats figure need protection.

timber, I ain't no democrat, so quit labeling me as one. Your opinion is your opinion. I have mine. What I posted to explain the problems with the new bankruptcy law was written by an attorney. I have no background in bankruptcy law nor care to comment on it. You can argue with the author all you like; your opinion doesn't mean crap to me.

Then why did you paste the rather long piece in the bankrupcy law? If you didn't want comment or opinion, why did you post it? It certainly appeared to me that you were inviting comment and opinion.

Now, I could be wrong, but I don't believe I applied any label, identifier, or other qualificative, negative or positive, to you the person. I don't see that I did - I note I characterized an assertion you made as "poppycock" - which I think it was. No background in bankruptcy law - or any other sort of law - is required to have and express an opinion relative to the matter - helpful perhaps, but neither necessary, nor claimed by either of us.

Regardless what the author of the piece you quoted at length (without attribution), by way of direct rebutttal to an earlier point of mine, does for a living, what he wrote was his opinion, just his opinion, nothin' more, nothin' less - just as you and I offer opinions. You apparently endorse Rao's opinion. I don't agree with Rao's opinion; in fact I think he's dead wrong. As mentioned, I have read Rao's entire article - and I provided a link to the original opinion piece.

I offered my own opinion, in answer to you, and cited statistics from a peer-reviewed-and-accepted, published Harvard Law School study in support of my position. If Rao were here, I'd prolly argue the point with him. He isn't, and he isn't pressing his argument, you are. Its of little importance what you may think of my opinion, or I of yours, beyond that we are entitled to hold and express opinions as we wish, subject, of course, to the constraints of civility. Thats pretty much what mature, rational discussion is about, IMO. I happen to enjoy civil discussions, whether or not I agree wth the person or persons at the other end of the discussion. Its not about "who", its about "what".

I have no problem continuin' the bankrupty law debate elsewhere, if you - or anyone else - wish, BTW - but for the sake of this thread and its participants, lets drop this digression of ours right here, OK?

I'm trying to find a source on what the revised "Stability and Growth Pact" says, specifically which exceptions are made for the 3% deficit and 60% national debt rules. Can any of you give me one? I'd appreciate it, because I seem out of luck on sources about the actual facts. All I can find is lots of opinion about the revision.

I did a bit of searching and found only commentary on the violations of the former terms, etc. I have the impression that the whole thing has drifted into the grey area of unenforced rules, institutionalized disagreement, and a collective waiting for a better moment. Such devices are often a reasonable approach to difficult issues, and the EU has done this before.

Well, unfortunately the complete morning - until now - only the French version of the «CONSEIL EUROPÉEN DE BRUXELLES - 22 et 23 MARS 2005 - CONCLUSIONS DE LA PRÉSIDENCE» is online (although the main website offers one of it as 'English' :wink: ) http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.ASP?lang=en

georgeob, Fair question. I posted it because it does disagree with many points of the new bankruptcy laws. I don't know how it will actually affect consumers, but that seems to be the primary issue for those interested in this subject. I've also read a piece in our local newspaper some months ago about the unintended repercussions to responsible consumers as a result of this new law. I'm not in a position to argue the pros and cons of every article I post; I usually try to present the opposing view for whatever it's worth.

Thank you, Walter! Your link lead me to a document, which referenced a document, which I Googled for, (...); anyway, after some tenacious searching, here it is:

"Improving the Implemtentation of the Stability and Growth Pact" (PDF).

I haven't read the document yet; but on the first glance, it appears that George is right: the EU council wrote a document that carefully avoided anything that might remotely look like a candid account of what it was doing, then hid it in some obscure corner in the basement of their webserver, behind a door saying "Caution -- bloodthirsty leopard". (Apologies to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.)

I am so thrilled to find this thread. But do I have to read the 124 pages before I can jump into the discussion?

Bram, that's up to you. Sometimes, I go back and follow a member's interaction through to the present day. I find that some members have a way with words; a their writing "speaks" to me.

How about the rest of you? Any opinions?

Bram, First of all, Welcome to A2K. It's really not necessary to read all of the previous posts on any thread if you wish to participate. However, be prepared to defend yourself if you post anything that has been challenged by another poster. Go ahead and put your foot in the water; that's the only way you'll know where you stand. If you feel comfortable, you can jump in.

Read the last page or so, you'll be fine.

Oh, thanks, guys (and gals? ) and thanks for the welcome, Cicerone. I did take a quick look at some pages, and boy, did the subjects change along the way!

As I am pretty new at this EU thing - and Walter can attest to that - I am going to read a few pages more to get acquainted with the "flow" of the discussions that had been going on. There is that other link that is posted on page 1 that I would like to scan too.

Now, where can I find the time to read all the nice threads in this forum???

By the way, are those pictures of yourselves? (not the little kitty, of course). That's cool!!