Greece forced to buy arms: MEP

digme

PARIS: France and Germany, while publicly urging Greece to make harsh public spending cuts, bullied its government to confirm billions of euros in arms deals, a leading Euro-MP alleged Friday.

Franco-German lawmaker Daniel Cohn-Bendit said that Paris and Berlin are seeking to force Prime Minister George Papandreou to spend Greece’s scarce cash on submarines, a fleet of warships, helicopters and war planes.

story

Why would they do such a thing?

A Dub in Glasgo

Quid Pro Quo?

SeanW

Your link is messed up. I don't know why they'd do that to Greece either - they clearly cannot afford to go on a military hardware buying spree. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

shofukan

Bull**** thread methinks.

northwest100

PressTV
DailyTimes
MSN
FOCUS News
Jakarta Globe

don't know if it's true, just posting some links to news articles referencing the claim

BlitzKrieg

ITs not that they are being forced to buy arms, its that they are being forced to honour contracts already signed.

I assume if germany and france allowed them off the damage to their own economy would make an unpopular decision even more unpopular in their own electorates.

Manic Moran

Why would they do such a thing?

I can answer that for the submarines, at any rate.

They're already built. They were built in Greece by the German-owned Hellenic Shipyards to a German design. The Greek government is in arrears on them(Especially on one boat which they haven't taken delivery of: It failed initial acceptance trials, and by the time the shipyard fixed it, the economic crisis hit and the Greeks aren't paying for it at all). Thyssen, who own the shipyard, want to get rid of it (It's running at a loss), but for whatever reason, they can't do so with the Greek government owing some half a billion in bills.

NTM

BetterLisbon

Confirms the view that the greek people will not benefit from any aid package. Western european banks and major firms will.

Riddle101

Let's just be thankful that it's Greece and not us, I think.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Confirms the view that the greek people will not benefit from any aid package. Western european banks and major firms will.

I hate to say this, but the Greek people aren't really entitled to benefit from any aid package. They benefited from the spending that got their country into the mess it's being bailed out of.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

I hate to say this, but the Greek people aren't really entitled to benefit from any aid package. They benefited from the spending that got their country into the mess it's being bailed out of.

regards,
Scofflaw

Let them suffer? what an appalling attitude.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Let them suffer? what an appalling attitude.

Are you under the impression that "the Greek people" are somehow nothing to do with the Greek government or Greek nation? That Greece gave the money it spent away to some other nation or people?

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you under the impression that "the Greek people" are somehow nothing to do with the Greek government or Greek nation? That Greece gave the money it spent away to some other nation or people?

regards,
Scofflaw

Let the people suffer to save banks and investors? I am truly appalled. I doubt even maggie thatcher in her heyday could have been that heartless.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Let the people suffer to save banks and investors? I am truly appalled. I doubt even maggie thatcher in her heyday could have been that heartless.

This appalling level of incomprehension was what made me initially reluctant to raise the point.

The Greek people are not suffering because of the bailout, they are suffering because their government spent itself into debt, and what the Greek government spent itself into debt on was the Greek people. The bailout money is not being given to banks and investors, but loaned to the Greek government. Asking that the Greek people benefit directly from the money given to bail out their national debt is stunningly idiotic - you're essentially calling for the Greek government to do exactly as it did before.

By analogy, you are saying that if money was given to Ireland to bail us out of our problems, it should be spent on the same things that got us into debt in the first place (the public sector, the tax reliefs). You would, apparently, think that was a good idea. And apparently you consider yourself right-wing.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

This appalling level of incomprehension was what made me initially reluctant to raise the point.

The Greek people are not suffering because of the bailout, they are suffering because their government spent itself into debt, and what the Greek government spent itself into debt on was the Greek people. Therefore, asking that the Greek people benefit directly from the money given to bail out their national debt is stunningly idiotic.

regards,
Scofflaw

This perfectly crystallises David McWilliams comment about a bankocracy replacing democracy.

thebman

BetterLisbon wrote: »

This perfectly crystallises David McWilliams comment about a bankocracy replacing democracy.

Not if the people demand a balanced budgets!

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

This perfectly crystallises David McWilliams comment about a bankocracy replacing democracy.

Possibly - after all, I often think McWilliams has no idea what he's talking about either.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly - after all, I often think McWilliams has no idea what he's talking about either.

regards,
Scofflaw

So is it your position that people should suffer to save banks?

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

So is it your position that people should suffer to save banks?

Where that is the choice? No - but that is not the choice in Greece. The Greek government needs to be bailed out because it has over-spent on the Greek people. Giving it more money to spend on the Greek people is not the solution, even if that appears to contradict one of your slogan-level views.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Where that is the choice? No - but that is not the choice in Greece. The Greek government needs to be bailed out because it has over-spent on the Greek people. Giving it more money to spend on the Greek people is not the solution, even if that appears to contradict one of your slogan-level views.

regards,
Scofflaw

How about letting the banks that lent to that reckless government at least take some of the pain via a debt renegotiation. Asking stavros and stelios to pay for the bad investments of western european banks is obscene in my book.

thebman

BetterLisbon wrote: »

How about letting the banks that lent to that reckless government at least take some of the pain via a debt renegotiation. Asking stavros and stelios to pay for the bad investments of western european banks is obscene in my book.

Greece could renegotiate its debts, it doesn't want to.

They have chosen to avail of the EU bailout for them.

There is a major problem if Greece stands up and says, you were stupid to invest in us, we are worthless to investment bankers.

How long will their junk rating be in place if they come out with such a statement?

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

How about letting the banks that lent to that reckless government at least take some of the pain via a debt renegotiation. Asking stavros and stelios to pay for the bad investments of western european banks is obscene in my book.

Apart from what thebman has already said, you appear incapable of understanding that what you're asking for is that a government with all the fiscal discipline of a drunken sailor on shore leave should not be required to pay back the debts it has acquired because some of the people it spent that money on may have to get less money as a result.

You appear to me to be confusing the question of banks recklessly lending to people during the property bubble with the purchase of Greek sovereign debt. The main buyers of sovereign debt are pension funds and similar institutions - you are calling for people who have nothing to do with Greece to take a hit to their pensions in order to bail out a government which systematically lied about its real debt.

patiently,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Apart from what thebman has already said, you appear incapable of understanding that what you're asking for is that a government with all the fiscal discipline of a drunken sailor on shore leave should not be required to pay back the debts it has acquired because some of the people it spent that money on may have to get less money as a result.

You appear to me to be confusing the question of banks recklessly lending to people during the property bubble with the purchase of Greek sovereign debt. The main buyers of sovereign debt are pension funds and similar institutions - you are calling for people who have nothing to do with Greece to take a hit to their pensions in order to bail out a government which systematically lied about its real debt.

patiently,
Scofflaw

Treasury bonds are an investment like everything else. If you make a bad investment then tough doo doo in my book. Furthermore how much pain would you see inflicted on the greek people to ensure bondholders get paid?

sink

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Treasury bonds are an investment like everything else. If you make a bad investment then tough doo doo in my book. Furthermore how much pain would you see inflicted on the greek people to ensure bondholders get paid?

Do you know what insolvency is?

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Treasury bonds are an investment like everything else. If you make a bad investment then tough doo doo in my book. Furthermore how much pain would you see inflicted on the greek people to ensure bondholders get paid?

How much have they brought on themselves? You're still missing the fundamental point here - the Greeks spent the money on themselves via their government. You apparently feel they should be given more money to spend on themselves - and you're happy if that money is taken from other people's pensions.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

How much have they brought on themselves? You're still missing the fundamental point here - the Greeks spent the money on themselves via their government. You apparently feel they should be given more money to spend on themselves - and you're happy if that money is taken from other people's pensions.

regards,
Scofflaw

No i argue that investors and speculators should take their share of the pain. They knew Greece was a risky investment but carried on regardless, why should they get bailed out.

prof_frink_2000

I'm with Scofflawon on this. Every Greek (over the age of 18) has known about the corruption in their state for the last 20 years they went along with it, just like we went along with our government's induced construction boom. We are now paying the price for 10+ years of FF and the Greeks are paying the price for 40+ years of corruption. Damn right Germany are standing up for their companies. If it were Quinn we'd be demanding they pay Quinn to protect Irish jobs, don't be so naive to believe we won't. In fact the bailout is to protect the 7 billion in greek government debt that is held in this country. Screw the banks really means screw us.

thebman

BetterLisbon wrote: »

No i argue that investors and speculators should take their share of the pain. They knew Greece was a risky investment but carried on regardless, why should they get bailed out.

Its not a bailout to pay back the person you took the loan off.

That's called loan repayment :rolleyes:

They didn't know Greece was that bad an investment since Greece was rigging its books.

The Greeks haven't a leg to stand on. Investors may have been willing to write off some of the debt if the Greek's hadn't lied to get the loans and gain membership of the Euro in the first place.

prof_frink_2000

thebman wrote: »

Its not a bailout to pay back the person you took the loan off.

That's called loan repayment :rolleyes:

Well Said!

BetterLisbon

Still waiting for someone to say how much suffering by stavros is 'acceptable' to save banks. Cuts to healthcare?

prof_frink_2000

Greece doesn't need to cut money to its health care to reduce its deficit. The problems in Greece are not like Ireland. If they address the corruption in the public service and with the politicians they they can fix it. There are 20,000 people employed in civil service jobs that don't exist, but still get paid. There is massive failure to pay income tax as the tax auditors are very easily bribed.

The Greeks can cut their deficit by becoming a proper functioning state, not a third world democracy. This isn't about saving banks over health care, its about Greece finally cleaning up its act. It has blatantly lied to the EU about its deficit for at least the last 11 years. The people of Greece ARE the state and they need to put an end to it. That starts with each and everyone of them fighting corruption. If your family doctor has to be ONLY paid in cash so he doesn't pay tax then they need to fight that. Otherwise they'll loose more than their healthcare - their pensions, their childrens education and more.

thebman

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Still waiting for someone to say how much suffering by stavros is 'acceptable' to save banks. Cuts to healthcare?

:rolleyes:

I give up, its not that you don't know what your saying is wrong, its that you know and willfully continue to do so anyway to try to pursue your agenda.

Its about hoping someone is silly enough to buy it.

What part of you have to pay back loans you take out do you not understand? If they did have to cut back healthcare then it would be on the Greeks and politcians heads for leaving it this long to sort out their financial problems.

BetterLisbon

thebman wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I give up, its not that you don't know what your saying is wrong, its that you know and willfully continue to do so anyway to try to pursue your agenda.

Its about hoping someone is silly enough to buy it.

What part of you have to pay back loans you take out do you not understand? If they did have to cut back healthcare then it would be on the Greeks and politcians heads for leaving it this long to sort out their financial problems.

They can renegotiate their debt like Argentina and Uruaguay or even just defer payments for a year like Dubai. Those who lent to Greece were fully aware of the risks.

DidierMc

We can't let the European industrial-military complex suffer during this recession now can we? In fact the EU forces every member to regularly purchase new military equipment to ensure the arms dealers make massive profits.

thebman

BetterLisbon wrote: »

They can renegotiate their debt like Argentina and Uruaguay or even just defer payments for a year like Dubai. Those who lent to Greece were fully aware of the risks.

Greece lied to the people lending to them to gain entry to the Euro so that they could keep the circus on the road.

So no the lenders could not possibly of been fully aware of the risk Greece posed as the Greeks were lying about it.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

We can't let the European industrial-military complex suffer during this recession now can we? In fact the EU forces every member to regularly purchase new military equipment to ensure the arms dealers make massive profits.

Some proof of that random assertion might be nice.

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Some proof of that random assertion might be nice.

regards,
Scofflaw

Under Lisbon we are required to progressively improve our military capability. Presumably this involves buying stuff from arms merchants who would presumably be making a profit from those sales. Whether this clause came about due to lobbying from the arms industry is one for legitimate speculation, alternative explanations might be the EU intends to exercise "hard power" in the coming years. Perhaps you have another explanation?

BetterLisbon

thebman wrote: »

Greece lied to the people lending to them to gain entry to the Euro so that they could keep the circus on the road.

So no the lenders could not possibly of been fully aware of the risk Greece posed as the Greeks were lying about it.

Investments can rise aswell as fall. Written into every contract with investment banks/funds when you deposit your savings into them.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Under Lisbon we are required to progressively improve our military capability. Presumably this involves buying stuff from arms merchants who would presumably be making a profit from those sales. Whether this clause came about due to lobbying from the arms industry is one for legitimate speculation, alternative explanations might be the EU intends to exercise "hard power" in the coming years. Perhaps you have another explanation?

Yes, having been over that one repeatedly as well - the Guarantees explicitly dealt with that particular misinterpretation. Further, that would hardly apply before this year, now would it?

regards,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Investments can rise aswell as fall. Written into every contract with investment banks/funds when you deposit your savings into them.

Either you are a phenomenal moron or you are trolling, thats the only explanation for the sheer dumbness of your posts on this thread.

DidierMc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, having been over that one repeatedly as well - the Guarantees explicitly dealt with that particular misinterpretation. Further, that would hardly apply before this year, now would it?

regards,
Scofflaw

Oh yes these great "gaurantees" which aren't actually legally binding. The fact is the europhiles would have said anything to get the Lisbon Treaty passed. Which they did. "Vote Yes for Jobs" was my favourite.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

Oh yes these great "gaurantees" which aren't actually legally binding. The fact is the europhiles would have said anything to get the Lisbon Treaty passed. Which they did. "Vote Yes for Jobs" was my favourite.

Let's see. I asked you for proof of the assertion that the EU "forces every member to regularly purchase new military equipment to ensure the arms dealers make massive profits". BetterLisbon replied with a much-covered misinterpretation of the Lisbon Treaty, which was irrelevant, and you're not doing any better. I've pointed out that the "progressive improvement" commitment was specifically dealt with by the guarantees, which have been accepted at the international level as binding, but whether you care about such legal niceties or not is irrelevant, because Lisbon doesn't enter the picture anyway.

Greece's commitments to military spending were made well before Lisbon, and are part of the pattern of stupid profligacy that got them into the mess they're now in - so clearly the idea that this is some kind of outcome of Lisbon is an explanation that would appeal only to the extremely hard of thinking.

Perhaps you can tell me what new military equipment we have been forced to buy by the EU?

regards,
Scofflaw

DidierMc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's see. I asked you for proof of the assertion that the EU "forces every member to regularly purchase new military equipment to ensure the arms dealers make massive profits". BetterLisbon replied with a much-covered misinterpretation of the Lisbon Treaty, which was irrelevant, and you're not doing any better.

Greece's commitments to military spending were made well before Lisbon, and are part of the pattern of stupid profligacy that got them into the mess they're now in - so clearly the idea that this is some kind of outcome of Lisbon is an explanation that would appeal only to the extremely hard of thinking.

Perhaps you can tell me what new military equipment we have been forced to buy by the EU?

regards,
Scofflaw

Under lisbon we are required to upgrade our military capacities. If you deny this you are just another lying deluded europhile.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

Under lisbon we are required to upgrade our military capacities. If you deny this you are just another lying deluded europhile.

Wash your mouth out with soap, laddie. Either you can answer the question with some kind of logical defence, or you can't. If you can't, you should retract the claim - and currently there's no sign that you're capable of defending the claim - rather than insulting people for pointing out your incapacity.

Do you understand how military spending commitments made by Greece before Lisbon cannot be attributed to Lisbon? It's a very basic piece of logic.

regards,
Scofflaw

DidierMc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Wash your mouth out with soap, laddie. Either you can answer the question with some kind of logical defence, or you can't. If you can't, you should retract the claim - and currently there's no sign that you're capable of defending the claim - rather than insulting people for pointing out your incapacity.

Do you understand how military spending commitments made by Greece before Lisbon cannot be attributed to Lisbon? It's a very basic piece of logic.

regards,
Scofflaw

There also made spending commitments to public services. Yet the EU are telling them they must cut these but they are saying nothing about military side of things.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

There also made spending commitments to public services. Yet the EU are telling them they must cut these but they are saying nothing about military side of things.

Which is entirely different from your original claim. Are you going to (a) support your original claim or (b) retract it?

waiting,
Scofflaw

DidierMc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which is entirely different from your original claim. Are you going to (a) support your original claim or (b) retract it?

waiting,
Scofflaw

Yes the EU forces countries to spend on military equipment they don't need.

Scofflaw

DidierMc wrote: »

Yes the EU forces countries to spend on military equipment they don't need.

No, that's just you repeating the claim. Come on, there are certain minimum standards of logic which forum contributors should be capable of - will you retract the statement or support it?

After all, you must have some kind of evidence for the statement, otherwise - presumably - you wouldn't make it in the first place. Right?

patiently,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, having been over that one repeatedly as well - the Guarantees explicitly dealt with that particular misinterpretation. Further, that would hardly apply before this year, now would it?

regards,
Scofflaw

You mean the piece of paper signed at a meeting of primeministers thats not enforceable in EU law and violates article 344 TFEU (The pre-lisbon european council was not an EU body and thus not competent to clarify the treaty).
Plus those "guarantees" referred to the overall defence budget not defence equipment budget. So we can always cut soldiers pay to reduce our overall defence budget.

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

You mean the piece of paper signed at a meeting of primeministers thats not enforceable in EU law and violates article 344 TFEU (The pre-lisbon european council was not an EU body and thus not competent to clarify the treaty).
Plus those "guarantees" referred to the overall defence budget not defence equipment budget. So we can always cut soldiers pay to reduce our overall defence budget.

Pity - you've completely misunderstood the legal basis of the guarantees, but they're completely irrelevant to the current claim DidierMc is supposed to be supporting, with or without your assistance, so I'm not going to bother right now - you can refer to the many earlier discussions.

Make or break here...

regards,
Scofflaw

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Pity - you've completely misunderstood the legal basis of the guarantees, but they're completely irrelevant to the current claim DidierMc is supposed to be supporting, with or without your assistance, so I'm not going to bother right now - you can refer to the many earlier discussions.

Make or break here...

regards,
Scofflaw

The guarantees are an international agreement outside the EU framework and thus not usable by EU institutions. As such they cannot be binding on the ECJ, EP or Commission etc.
The guarantees are however 7 pages of waffle dressed up in legalese to give the impression of substantial changes so whether they are binding or not is irrelevant.