Greeks having a referendum on bailout

carveone · 08-11-2011 02:34PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you not see a contradiction between the 2 elements quoted? I agree with what you are saying in the second part but the ultimate result of it is interference in Greek democracy, whether rightly or wrongly.

I really try to understand people's position on this, firstly to play devil's advocate and secondly in the hope that they really believe there was some sort of interference going on. And I can't blame them so much with all the nonsense spouted on programs like Frontline and Vincent Browne.

For example, I genuinely didn't have a clue why an exit from the Euro would imply (not force) an exit from the EU given the Treaty rules. But beeftotheheels explained the degree to which the EU gives you (ie: the public) rights to sue the ass off your government for messing with your rights, something this country has taken pleasure in doing to its citizens in the past, and how those rights are imcompatible with what the government has to do to you (ie: not nice) in a Euro exit.

And frankly, that's a good thing. It means that people shouldn't be afraid that a reversion to the Punt is on the table. It will never ever be on the table. And that means confidence. Which means local investment and jobs.

So let's say my friend Bob came to me in a tizzy and said he needed money for a car to get to his new job. And we made a deal for the money and I felt good about myself for helping a friend and everything was setup and ready to go.

And then Bob decides he might be better off on the dole and isn't sure about taking the job. Would I be the bad guy for saying "Uh... yeah... Look, you can decide whatever you want, but you aren't getting my money to buy a car unless you can pay it back. And that means taking the job." Is that an infringement of his "rights"? Am I being undemocratic. An overlord? Of course not, I'm just telling him what my position is. And that position involves feeding my family, not his. He can still do whatever he likes but I'd be remiss in my responsibility to my family to still give him the money regardless.

In real life I'd just tell him to drop dead and cycle to work.

Diplomacy must be exhausting...

jonniebgood1 · 08-11-2011 03:53PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The German government is responsible to the German people, not to the Greek people. That means the German government has the right to set and make public whatever terms it may choose in respect of its money (indeed, not to do so would be deceptive). The effect of that on how - and whether - the Greeks vote is up to the Greeks.

Democracy is a method for making decisions. To interfere with it requires one to engage in electoral fraud, either at the public level so as to distort the outcome of elections or referendums, or at the parliamentary level to distort the outcome of parliamentary votes. Another country setting out the terms it will deal with you on is not part of that - it's diplomacy.

Most of your response is agreeable with my view and indeed most people views and the reasons outlined for Germany/ France holding their respective positions are correct. However, I dont see how it can be construed as anything other than interfering in greek democracy. While I agree that "The German government is responsible to the German people, not to the Greek people", this does not automatically mean that these responsibilities won't involve impinging on another countries attempts to be democratic in the choices it makes. To reverse the quote the Greek government is responsible to the Greek people, not the German people. When there was a proposal to put the latest EU agreement on how to fund Greece to a democratic referendum the German government represented the views of many of their citizens in the views expressed. They made it clear that if Greece rejected the newest deal then they would not be allowed stay in the Euro. Whether it was the intention or not this spooked greek MP's and finance minister and the situation has resulted in a new Greek government. Finally there are many ways of interfering in democracy, the terms given are far to narrow and nothing is ever that straightforward. By the terms given electoral fraud is the only way of interfering with democracy and I am sure you realise that there are many more ways of doing this.

KerranJast wrote: »

Scofflaw is on the ball as usual. The Germans didn't stop the Greek referendum. They simply outlined the consequence of a No vote. That this new bailout deal is all that's being offered and the alternative is Greek default and expulsion from the Eurozone.

What stopped the Referendum is the Greek opposition parties suddenly realised they couldn't be responsible for the entire destruction of the Greek economy (bad enough as it is right now its nowhere near as bad as it would be if they had no external help) and so they went along with a Unity Government plan.

To be clear I did not claim that Germany stopped the referendum. They outlined the consequence as they saw it and that is what stopped the referendum in Greece. This has led to a new government being proposed now for Greece. This government will naturally given the way it was formed be more in favour of the German/ French ideas and proposals. This is clearly interference in Greek affairs and Greece is a democracy.

jonniebgood1 · 08-11-2011 04:01PM

carveone wrote: »

So let's say my friend Bob came to me in a tizzy and said he needed money for a car to get to his new job. And we made a deal for the money and I felt good about myself for helping a friend and everything was setup and ready to go.

And then Bob decides he might be better off on the dole and isn't sure about taking the job. Would I be the bad guy for saying "Uh... yeah... Look, you can decide whatever you want, but you aren't getting my money to buy a car unless you can pay it back. And that means taking the job." Is that an infringement of his "rights"? Am I being undemocratic. An overlord? Of course not, I'm just telling him what my position is. And that position involves feeding my family, not his. He can still do whatever he likes but I'd be remiss in my responsibility to my family to still give him the money regardless.

In real life I'd just tell him to drop dead and cycle to work.

Diplomacy must be exhausting...

Your analogy is not constrained by democracy so it does'nt fit. I understand the point being made clearly and I don't have a problem with the actions. Nations have interfered in others affairs throughout history. What I don't understand is the PC rubbish between nations whilst they all say they respect each other. If Germany wants to interfere with Greek affairs to get a decision reversed (referendum) then it is able to do so due to its economic power (in history it would be weaponry instead of economics). This is what has happened but I agree that there is no interference. The various views are interesting though.

I'd stay away from Bob by the way!

beeftotheheels · 08-11-2011 04:11PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They made it clear that if Greece rejected the newest deal then they would not be allowed stay in the Euro. Whether it was the intention or not this spooked greek MP's and finance minister and the situation has resulted in a new Greek government.

No they did not. Did Papandreou think, for one moment, that a Greek referendum could be held without jeopardizing Greece's EU membership? I don't think he did, the Greek opposition certainly got it as did members of his party who all spoke publicly on the matter before Papandreou was summonsed to Cannes (see quotes in one of my previous posts on this thread).

Papandreou gambled, and he may even have won if his aim was to create stable Greece capable of implementing reforms because he has refocused the debate within Greece, the Greek people now understand what is at stake, a national unity government under Papademos is about to be announced and opinion polls suggest Greek people would prefer a national unity government to a referendum or even fresh elections.

The notion that Germany interfered in the domestic affairs of Greece requires you to believe that the Greek politicians were caught on the hop by the European response which they clearly were not. It was not only foreseeable but it was foreseen by Greek politicians.

carveone · 08-11-2011 04:55PM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No they did not. Did Papandreou think, for one moment, that a Greek referendum could be held without jeopardizing Greece's EU membership? I don't think he did, the Greek opposition certainly got it as did members of his party who all spoke publicly on the matter before Papandreou was summonsed to Cannes (see quotes in one of my previous posts on this thread).

The way their Finance minister immediately freaked out indicated that they all well knew what the consequences were. They have their own advisors and experts.

However I'll agree that there's a subtlety of diplomacy here that gives the impression that Germany and France acted rashly. They could have done a better job by making a statement through the EU commission. Like "In the interest of democracy and transparancy the Greek citizenry should be warned that...etc..."

In the event, the important people, the Greek people, seem to have understood what is actually at stake here and opinion polls seem to bear that out. The polls did indicate previously that Greeks did not want out of the EU so holding a referendum to ask a question they didn't want to be asked in a way that looked like it wasn't been asked (!) would have been a pretty poor show.

jonniebgood1 wrote:

What I don't understand is the PC rubbish between nations whilst they all say they respect each other.

There's a lot of tiptoeing through the minefield of intercountry relations. The way every comment by EU officials during the Lisbon treaty referendum here was blown way out of proportion and treated as an "attack on our sovereignty" will attest to how testy the public tends to be.

I'm sure they all want to beat each other with sticks (UK and France is particularly entertaining) but I guess that's why the EU was formed in the first place. Less sticks, more shouting matches, preferably in football statiums. Seems to work ok most of the time.

jonniebgood1 · 08-11-2011 05:32PM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No they did not.

You think the EU leaders didnt make this clear (I'm not sure if this is what you are saying?)

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Papandreou gambled, and he may even have won if his aim was to create stable Greece capable of implementing reforms because he has refocused the debate within Greece, the Greek people now understand what is at stake, a national unity government under Papademos is about to be announced and opinion polls suggest Greek people would prefer a national unity government to a referendum or even fresh elections.

The notion that Germany interfered in the domestic affairs of Greece requires you to believe that the Greek politicians were caught on the hop by the European response which they clearly were not. It was not only foreseeable but it was foreseen by Greek politicians.

No no- it is highly debatable that they now have stable government. I would expect that they won't have stable government ans an election will be required within months. They now have a more volatile selection of views in government and there will be internal wrangling galore. The Greek people might prefer national unity government but it does not follow that it works.

Greek politicians do not have to be caught 'on the hop' for interference to make sense. They were left in no doubt what a referendum would mean and they got rid of the idea pretty fast when Papandreou returned from Cannes.

beeftotheheels · 08-11-2011 06:27PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You think the EU leaders didnt make this clear (I'm not sure if this is what you are saying?)

If Angela from Berlin announced tomorrow that if Ireland has more rain like last month then we will probably have floods is that evidence of her interfering in our meteorological affairs?

Publicly stating that a certain course of events will have certain consequences is not interfering in domestic politics. The Greeks knew what the consequences would be at a European level and it seems to have created a national unity government and a happy former Greek PM if reports out of Athens are to be believed.

But back to the more general point. State sovereignty is not absolute, it hasn't been for centuries. Sovereigns can restrict their actions through domestic laws like a written constitution. They can be restricted domestically by their courts applying rules like natural justice to them. They can restrict it by signing up to international conventions, or find their actions curtailed by customary international law.

They can restrict their flexibility by borrowing. And finally they can restrict their sovereignty by joining a supra national organization such as the EU.

So even if the Eurozone leaders did anything more than state the obvious consequences which can flow from certain actions, they would, as the creditors of Greece be entitled to do so. Creditors do not have to lend on any terms, they can lend on specific terms and one of the terms of the lending to Greece is that Greece implement the programme agreed.

To argue otherwise is to argue that sovereigns cannot borrow because who would lend to a sovereign on any terms? Who would lend to any borrower who can unilaterally decide to do whatever suits them at whatever point in time?

jonniebgood1 · 08-11-2011 11:34PM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Publicly stating that a certain course of events will have certain consequences is not interfering in domestic politics. The Greeks knew what the consequences would be at a European level and it seems to have created a national unity government and a happy former Greek PM if reports out of Athens are to be believed.

But back to the more general point. State sovereignty is not absolute, it hasn't been for centuries. Sovereigns can restrict their actions through domestic laws like a written constitution. They can be restricted domestically by their courts applying rules like natural justice to them. They can restrict it by signing up to international conventions, or find their actions curtailed by customary international law.

They can restrict their flexibility by borrowing. And finally they can restrict their sovereignty by joining a supra national organization such as the EU.

So even if the Eurozone leaders did anything more than state the obvious consequences which can flow from certain actions, they would, as the creditors of Greece be entitled to do so. Creditors do not have to lend on any terms, they can lend on specific terms and one of the terms of the lending to Greece is that Greece implement the programme agreed.

To argue otherwise is to argue that sovereigns cannot borrow because who would lend to a sovereign on any terms? Who would lend to any borrower who can unilaterally decide to do whatever suits them at whatever point in time?

Apart from the first line of what I quoted above I agree with all the descriptions you give. The problem in the context of the discussion is that none of the descriptions given back up the opinion that it is not interference.

beeftotheheels · 09-11-2011 12:15AM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Apart from the first line of what I quoted above I agree with all the descriptions you give. The problem in the context of the discussion is that none of the descriptions given back up the opinion that it is not interference.

If stating publicly that actions have consequences constitutes interference then sovereigns the world over are being interfered with on a daily basis.

By that measure of interference yes, they were interfered with in just the same way as we were interfered with by the scientists who first proposed global warning as something to be avoided. We were interfered with by the bond markets who sent our yields sky and don't even get me started on the clearing houses who increased the collateral requirement.

And we are interfered with every single day by much more invasive action by the EU from requiring us to interpose directives into domestic law, the Commission instigating infringement proceedings against our exit tax in TCA s627, I just wouldn't have the energy required to be vexed by all of it.

If Merkel or Sarkozy said tomorrow that we could be thrown out of the EU if we didn't replace Enda as Taoiseach tomorrow for no other reason than they don't like his mayo accent then that would constitute interference that I would be vexed about, if instead of telling us to close the deficit they started proscribing in detail how that was to be done then that is something I would be vexed about.

Publicly stating a fact as interference worthy of discussion pfffft

Good loser · 09-11-2011 02:04AM

Interesting topic and debate.

Scofflaw and Beef win by a distance.

cyberhog · 09-11-2011 05:01AM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Did Papandreou think, for one moment, that a Greek referendum could be held without jeopardizing Greece's EU membership?

Well the democratic procedure of holding a referendum in itself cannot put EU membership in jeopardy. It would depend entirely on the result of the referendum whether or not Greece's EU membership was in any danger.

And as for Papandreou, he made his feelings on the matter very clear.

"I believe that the Greek people are wise and capable of making the right decision," Papandreou told reporters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-euro-greece-20111103,0,3649398.story

Clearly, the EU overlords did not share that sentiment.

meglome · 09-11-2011 05:21AM

cyberhog wrote: »

And as for Papandreou, he made his feelings on the matter very clear.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-euro-greece-20111103,0,3649398.story

Clearly, the EU overlords did not share that sentiment.

Even if we take it that Papandreou really thought there would be a referendum, which is debatable. How exactly did anyone else interfere with the Greek decisions?

Now I appreciate that anyone using the words 'EU Overlords' as much as you might be the wrong person to bother discussing this with. Anyway...say for example someone is going to jump off a cliff and I pointed out to them that the fall with likely do very serious injury to them. Am I interfering or just pointing out the obvious consequences of their actions? Because they are thinking about jumping off the cliff it could be inferred that they really are not thinking about these consequences and should be reminded.

cyberhog · 09-11-2011 06:05AM

meglome wrote: »

Now I appreciate that anyone using the words 'EU Overlords' as much as you might be the wrong person to bother discussing this with. Anyway...

Hey meglome, I tell you what. If that's how you feel about my personal views then don't bother yourself responding to me.

meglome · 09-11-2011 06:09AM

cyberhog wrote: »

Hey meglome, I tell you what. If that's how you feel about my personal views then don't bother yourself responding to me.

Since we are the EU as much as any other member is, as we our own overlords?

cyberhog · 09-11-2011 07:32AM

meglome wrote: »

Since we are the EU as much as any other member is, as we our own overlords?

As you clearly think discussing the matter with me is beneath you I'll let the New York Times bring you up to speed.

Call it Europe’s G-1.

The euro zone’s debt crisis has reshaped the way power works in the European Union, putting Germany in the driver’s seat at the expense of the European Commission and other member states.

Gone are the days when the exclusive right of the commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, to initiate legislation made it the engine of European integration.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is now calling the shots, with France as a distinctly junior partner, setting out demands for economic policy coordination along German lines and using her leverage as Europe’s paymaster to gain consent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/business/global/22inside.html?_r=1

djpbarry · 09-11-2011 11:01AM

cyberhog wrote: »

Well the democratic procedure of holding a referendum in itself cannot put EU membership in jeopardy. It would depend entirely on the result of the referendum whether or not Greece's EU membership was in any danger.

Can you not see the obvious contradiction in that statement?

cyberhog wrote: »

And as for Papandreou, he made his feelings on the matter very clear.

Yes, Papandreou was obviously looking out for the Greek people. Not thinking of his own future career prospects or anything like that. Heavens no.

cyberhog wrote: »

As you clearly think discussing the matter with me is beneath you I'll let the New York Times bring you up to speed.

I find it genuinely disturbing that people can, without question, treat an opinion piece in a newspaper as an accurate description of events.

beeftotheheels · 09-11-2011 11:35AM

Greece fiddles while Rome burns.

The Greeks cannot organize the National Unity Government - latest from the DJ is that there are issues with Papademos (like he wanted powers to actually implement changes or something similarly unreasonable) while Italian 10 years (trending globally on twitter mind #Italian 10) have breached 7% on the news that LCH Clearnet SA have increased the margins and Ltd is likely to follow suit.

Do we now blame the Greek politicians for interfering in Italian sovereignty?

jonniebgood1 · 09-11-2011 11:38AM

djpbarry wrote: »

I find it genuinely disturbing that people can, without question, treat an opinion piece in a newspaper as an accurate description of events.

It is an opinion piece rather than fact but to dismiss it completely on this basis is equally 'disturbing'. Which parts of the opinion piece do you not agree with?

jonniebgood1 · 09-11-2011 11:40AM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Greece fiddles while Rome burns.

The Greeks cannot organize the National Unity Government - latest from the DJ is that there are issues with Papademos (like he wanted powers to actually implement changes or something similarly unreasonable) while Italian 10 years (trending globally on twitter mind #Italian 10) have breached 7% on the news that LCH Clearnet SA have increased the margins and Ltd is likely to follow suit.

Do we now blame the Greek politicians for interfering in Italian sovereignty?

No- there are very clear differences between the Eurozone leaders forcing the Greek referendum idea to be abandoned and what you describe.

djpbarry · 09-11-2011 11:50AM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is an opinion piece rather than fact but to dismiss it completely on this basis is equally 'disturbing'.

Oh I’m not dismissing it – I haven’t even had a chance to read it yet!

beeftotheheels · 09-11-2011 11:51AM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

No- there are very clear differences between the Eurozone leaders forcing the Greek referendum idea to be abandoned and what you describe.

Is there? Really?

The French and German leadership states publicly that if Greece fails to implement the terms of their borrowing then that borrowing cannot be guaranteed.

The decisions of Greek politicians put the whole eurozone in play, most notably today being Italy, but also France (austerity budget yesterday, bond yields rising) etc

Greece started this and I just find it incredibly rich that Greece's decisions, which negatively impact on everyone, are to your mind not interfering with other States sovereignty. Yet when everyone else tells Greece that there are consequences for messing around with every one else that does constitute such an interference?

Explain please because I am all ears.

FreudianSlippers · 09-11-2011 11:59AM

I think there is a big difference between Merkel Calling the shots (supposedly) and Merkel pointing out that if Greece wants the German taxpayers to swallow this pill, they had better show that they're willing to feel some pain too.

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

jonniebgood1 · 09-11-2011 12:43PM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Is there? Really?

The French and German leadership states publicly that if Greece fails to implement the terms of their borrowing then that borrowing cannot be guaranteed.

The decisions of Greek politicians put the whole eurozone in play, most notably today being Italy, but also France (austerity budget yesterday, bond yields rising) etc

Greece started this and I just find it incredibly rich that Greece's decisions, which negatively impact on everyone, are to your mind not interfering with other States sovereignty. Yet when everyone else tells Greece that there are consequences for messing around with every one else that does constitute such an interference?

Explain please because I am all ears.

No problem- I think there are wires getting crossed here. What you have said above is different to what I had replied to which was "Do we now blame the Greek politicians for interfering in Italian sovereignty?"
You are mixing up consequences of realtime Greek decisions with thinly veiled threats of possible consequences. I see a clear difference in these 2 things and they are clear in your description although I would comment on each as follows:

The French and German leadership states publicly that if Greece fails to implement the terms of their borrowing then that borrowing cannot be guaranteed.

The interference being refered to was the suggestions that Greece would leave the Euro if they voted not to accept deal in referendum. This threat resulted in the referendum being scrapped.

The decisions of Greek politicians put the whole eurozone in play, most notably today being Italy, but also France (austerity budget yesterday, bond yields rising) etc

I agree that Greek decisions have consequences. This is also quite clear but its not on the same basis as scuppering a proposed referendum.

carveone · 09-11-2011 02:26PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

"Do we now blame the Greek politicians for interfering in Italian sovereignty?"

Prime Time yesterday said pretty much exactly that, saying that the EU had forced the Greek PM to resign and was now forcing Berlusconi to step down.

Frankly if anyone's interfering its the United States through its banks and rating agencies.

djpbarry · 09-11-2011 03:00PM

carveone wrote: »

Prime Time yesterday said pretty much exactly that, saying that the EU had forced the Greek PM to resign and was now forcing Berlusconi to step down.

The unfolding crisis in Italy has an air of self-fulfilling prophecy about it.

carveone · 09-11-2011 03:26PM

djpbarry wrote: »

The unfolding crisis in Italy has an air of self-fulfilling prophecy about it.

I'm not liking the inevitability. In Greece's case, the consequences were overstated if anything - a last minute fix was always a possiblity. Italy is an actual problem, made worse (IMHO) by Berclusconi's resignation. He was a bit of a playboy but he was a businessman above all else and casting him aside was not good for confidence.

I believe that the time may have come for the ECB to act to increase money supply. MV = PQ and all that. Germany is not a fan of quantitive easing, and god knows it has terrible and awful memories on the relationships between economics and war. And I'm not a fan of it either but, as they say, Needs must when the devil drives...

If Germany could realise that every eurozone economy cannot run a payments surplus right now and let up a little on the reins of the ECB. I think France is piling the pressure on Germany right now (regardless of what the boneheaded media says) and they may be getting reluctant approval....

(I think I need to read some good books on economics at this stage. I'm over my head in most of these threads!)

beeftotheheels · 09-11-2011 03:30PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I agree that Greek decisions have consequences. This is also quite clear but its not on the same basis as scuppering a proposed referendum.

This is the bit I am still not getting - the "it is clear" bit. It is not clear at all. Greek actions have a direct causal link to what is going on in the eurozone on the one hand, Germany and France explaining facts led the Greek Government to call off a proposed referendum on the other.

France and Germany did not change the facts, they simply stated them and Greece reacted (as I suspect they had planned to do all along, if not they're a hopeless case although jury remains out on that).

Greece told lies and altered the facts. Much larger sin with much greater consequences so if we're to agree with your very low threshold for "interfering in the sovereignty of another State" then Greece more than passes that threshold, and is continuing to pass it today with their inability to get their act together (it is gone 2 and still no PM).

Personally I'd set the bar higher as I have explained, but if you use your bar then Greece is the much larger offender because it was entirely foreseeable that the core would have to try and rescue them and thus risk their own taxpayers' funds, and it is entirely foreseeable today that the longer they engage in domestic politics the more trouble they cause for the whole.

Since it was also entirely foreseeable that creditors would put conditions on bailouts such as actually implementing the agreement made, the statement by Merkel and Sarkozy did not cause the Greek's to pull their referendum unless the Greeks were trying to play chicken with the core and they cannot claim a sovereign right to play chicken.

I don't believe they were playing chicken, at least not with parties outside Greece so they said something (referendum) they got the entirely expected response (WTF?) and then moved on to fighting over a national unity government with public buy-in. It plays out as the Greek Government could/ should/ would have expected.

Greek lies, lies and more lies coupled with intransigence does not play out as other Eurozone governments might have expected.

And right on cue the leaked reports from Athens prove that Greek sovereignty is fine because they are going with Petsalnikos as the next PM rather than Pamademos or Skouris who would have been seen as much better choices by the Eurozone (and the markets). The Greeks have reserved the right to throw themselves into the abyss. All hail democracy and sovereignty.

meglome · 09-11-2011 03:50PM

cyberhog wrote: »

As you clearly think discussing the matter with me is beneath you I'll let the New York Times bring you up to speed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/business/global/22inside.html?_r=1

Not at all, I do however find that using the phrase 'EU Overlords' repeatedly will tell most people here where you stand more clearly than anything else you could say. The phrase is rubbish, as we are as much the EU as anyone else is.

You appear to have reached a conclusion and seek to find whatever opinion backs that up.

Here's my post with the line about EU overlords removed, just for you.

meglome wrote: »

Even if we take it that Papandreou really thought there would be a referendum, which is debatable. How exactly did anyone else interfere with the Greek decisions?

Say for example someone is going to jump off a cliff and I pointed out to them that the fall with likely do very serious injury to them. Am I interfering or just pointing out the obvious consequences of their actions? Because they are thinking about jumping off the cliff it could be inferred that they really are not thinking about these consequences and should be reminded.

jonniebgood1 · 09-11-2011 04:43PM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Since it was also entirely foreseeable that creditors would put conditions on bailouts such as actually implementing the agreement made, the statement by Merkel and Sarkozy did not cause the Greek's to pull their referendum unless the Greeks were trying to play chicken with the core and they cannot claim a sovereign right to play chicken.

Bailout conditions are one thing. A threat of losing membership of your countries currency is a totally different ball game. Your judgement of the weight of the Merkel-Sarkozy statements is not correct if you don't see a difference between these. The Germans and French want the bailout accepted for their own reasons, reasons that suit their own interests and most likely their banks. They knew what they were doing meeting Papandreou and then announcing that any referendum would have to be on greek membership of the Euro. If thats not interference then I don't know what is. Imagine if Sarkozy was to announce that the irish referendum on judges pay had to be a referendum on whether we want judges or not in our country.

beeftotheheels · 09-11-2011 05:11PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The Germans and French want the bailout accepted for their own reasons, reasons that suit their own interests and most likely their banks.

Ah, now I get you. This is a case of burning the poor Greek people to protect evil foreign banks is it?

Since I view that premise as being, quite frankly, off the wall; I think we should cease the discussion here.

It has been fun.

Greeks having a referendum on bailout

Comments