Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Greeks having a referendum on bailout

1…910121415

Comments

  • #332
    RMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    The major problem with this sort of referendum is, the general public have very little knowledge of economics and what the impact of their vote will have. Many will vote for the wrong reasons out of ignorance.


  • #333
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RMD wrote: »
    The major problem with [almost any] sort of referendum is, the general public have very little knowledge of [...] what the impact of their vote will have. Many will vote for the wrong reasons out of ignorance.
    With some minor tweaks, you end up with the fundamental problem with the concept of direct democracy.


  • #334
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    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.

    "burning the poor Greek people to protect evil foreign banks is it"
    again you are not taking what I said, rather you extract one portion of my comment away from its context (i.e. rest of the sentence).

    Also if this "premise" in the context I expressed is so "off the wall" then it won't take you long to discount it. Withdrawing from the discussion is another option if the "premise" is not so easily discounted?

    I would say I am bemused rather than having fun but I expect a short explanation of the 'real' reason that France- Germany are keen to pay for a Greek bailout would indeed be fun :pac:


  • #335
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    With some minor tweaks, you end up with the fundamental problem with the concept of direct democracy.

    Yes direct democracy has problems
    but its god damn better alternative than dictatorship from Brussels/Frankfurt, no matter how well meaning


    Does it not worry anyone that Europe/ECB can now apply so much pressure as to be able to dislodge not one but 2 democratically elected governments (no matter how incompetent they are)

    Is this what the EU amounts to when put under relatively small stress?


  • #336
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Yes direct democracy has problems
    but its god damn better alternative than dictatorship from Brussels/Frankfurt, no matter how well meaning
    I refuse to subscribe to the idea that doing the wrong thing of your own free will (especially when informed by ignorance, which is the default state of affairs in a referendum) is always, invariably, unquestionably better than doing the right thing under pressure.
    Does it not worry anyone that Europe/ECB can now apply so much pressure as to be able to dislodge not one but 2 democratically elected governments (no matter how incompetent they are)

    Is this what the EU amounts to when put under relatively small stress?
    It's convenient to set aside the fact that the problems Greece and Italy (and, let's face it, Ireland) are pretty much entirely of their own making, isn't it? It's also pretty convenient to set aside the fact that those problems are now also very much Germany's and France's problems also.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I refuse to subscribe to the idea that doing the wrong thing of your own free will (especially when informed by ignorance, which is the default state of affairs in a referendum) is always, invariably, unquestionably better than doing the right thing under pressure. It's convenient to set aside the fact that the problems Greece and Italy (and, let's face it, Ireland) are pretty much entirely of their own making, isn't it? It's also pretty convenient to set aside the fact that those problems are now also very much Germany's and France's problems also.

    No matter how bad the problems are and yes they are mostly self-inflicted, tho Germany is doing quite well out of a currency being weakened by the likes of PIGS, so they are not saints either!

    The fact that EU/ECB/Germany/France can apply so much pressure as to dislodge a democratically elected government * 2 (once again no matter how bad) is very troubling

    You can try to justify it all you want but democracy is being spat on here, that is not a Europe and European Project that I envisaged or spend so much time supporting, and no I will not shy away from calling kettle black.


  • #338
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    The fact that EU/ECB/Germany/France can apply so much pressure as to dislodge a democratically elected government * 2 (once again no matter how bad) is very troubling.

    Now hold on just one second. The EU/ECB/Germany/France are dislodging "democratically elected governments" by refusing to break the rules to support those governments, and the bond markets and LCH have nothing to do with this at all at all?

    It is capitalism my dear, pure and simple capitalism at work which you normally laud, so why is it upsetting you now?

    Trust the people. Trust the markets. The people and the markets are screaming at each other. Who to trust?


  • #339
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Now hold on just one second. The EU/ECB/Germany/France are dislodging "democratically elected governments" by refusing the break the rules to support those governments, and the bond markets and LCH have nothing to do with this at all at all?

    They already broke the rules to rescue banks and countries, give it up :rolleyes:
    The path that was chosen and followed in the last few years is very much not "lets stand back and see what happens"


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    It is capitalism my dear, pure and simple capitalism at work which you normally laud, so why is it upsetting you now?

    Capitalism is an economic concept, Democracy is a political concept
    Both work quite well together as is illustrated by the relative success of democratic countries with various degrees of capitalism sprinkled in

    apples and mangoes its a sad state of affairs that you can not tell them apart :rolleyes:

    EU/ECB are not letting Greece Fail, neither are they letting Italy fail, if anything the rhetoric is that failure is not an option and now a democratic vote on whether to default is not an option either :rolleyes:
    Btw German miracle is very much thanks to the euro and it being weakened by "southern" states

    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Trust the people. Trust the markets. The people and the markets are screaming at each other. Who to trust?

    How about trusting people in democratic elections instead of denying them a vote, when Europe needs it it sees no problem on having a referendum or two...


  • #340
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    How about trusting people in democratic elections instead of denying them a vote...
    Let's try a reductio ad absurdum approach here: if Greece wanted to hold a referendum on whether or not to invade Germany, do you think Germany would be "spitting on democracy" if it put pressure on Greece not to hold such a referendum?


  • #341
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    They already broke the rules to rescue banks and countries, give it up :rolleyes:
    The path that was chosen and followed in the last few years is very much not "lets stand back and see what happens"

    and?




    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Capitalism is an economic concept, Democracy is a political concept
    Both work quite well together as is illustrated by the relative success of democratic countries with various degrees of capitalism sprinkled in

    apples and mangoes its a sad state of affairs that you can note tell them apart :rolleyes:
    and it is a shocking state of affairs that you would post on the topic without understanding in any way, shape or form, how they interact.

    Parliament is not supreme, parliaments can and do bind themselves (or find themselves bound) by laws or actions undertaken by their predecessors. A usual example would be the fact that Ireland could not, tomorrow, decide to levy a 25% income tax on all Irish people and a 50% tax on the national of all other EU Member States because the treaties don't allow us to do so.

    But similarly, when one Irish Government signs a contract undertaking to borrow €xbn off Y, that Irish Government (and its successors) must take the necessary steps to ensure that we are in a position to pay back Y if we intend remaining a happy little capitalist democracy.

    Greece and Italy have both borrowed, huge amounts of money, and now they have to decide if they are going to pay that money, or at least some of that money back. And if they're going to be in a position to borrow more.

    The Greek, and Italian peoples and their parliaments are entirely free to turn their backs on capitalism and default on their debt obligations. Indeed they are welcome to do so, but both Governments seem to have determined that they do not wish to follow this path to its logical conclusion.

    So in both instances the domestic legislatures (with a little poking from the president in Italy's case) will determine what government will lead their people in the coming weeks and months bearing in mind their views on honoring contracts which they have signed.

    And as further evidence that this role is being left up to them they are free to make a complete hash of it as Greece seems likely to do at pixel time.
    How about trusting people in democratic elections instead of denying them a vote, when Europe needs it it sees no problem on having a referendum or two...

    Are the Germans to be given a vote too, because fair is fair?


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let's try a reductio ad absurdum approach here: if Greece wanted to hold a referendum on whether or not to invade Germany, do you think Germany would be "spitting on democracy" if it put pressure on Greece not to hold such a referendum?

    Defaulting on unsustainable debt is an act of war? Whats next you'll bring Hitler into the thread :rolleyes: oh wait lets forget that whole bit of German history and its Versailles/WW1 reparations roots ... :rolleyes:
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    and?
    It throws your "doing nothing" argument out the window, doing something is what is happening and this something is removal of leadership via undemocratic methods.

    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Parliament is not supreme, parliaments can and do bind themselves (or find themselves bound) by laws or actions undertaken by their predecessors. A usual example would be the fact that Ireland could not, tomorrow, decide to levy a 25% income tax on all Irish people and a 50% tax on the national of all other EU Member States because the treaties don't allow us to do so.

    Democracy is not perfect but its a better alternative than the rest

    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    But similarly, when one Irish Government signs a contract undertaking to borrow €xbn off Y, that Irish Government (and its successors) must take the necessary steps to ensure that we are in a position to pay back Y if we intend remaining a happy little capitalist democracy.

    And if the said government pisses away the ability to repay the loans does that give other states the right to interfere in the politics of this state? whats next invade Greece to get paid back??


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Are the Germans to be given a vote too, because fair is fair?

    Why not, why not give all people in eurozone a say on a basic question

    YES do everything to save the euro
    NO start making plans to transition each and every state out of the euro and back to national currencies

    Or would that be too democratic for you? The above would certainly clear the air and give a clear mandate to politicians on what course of action to take.


    Or how about an easier option, ask the German people whether they want to exit the euro, Germany exiting the euro would not cause a bank run in Germany and would weaken the currency making it easier for the rest to get on


  • #343
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Defaulting on unsustainable debt is an act of war? Whats next you'll bring Hitler into the thread :rolleyes: oh wait lets forget that whole bit of German history and its Versailles/WW1 reparations roots ... :rolleyes:


    It throws your "doing nothing" argument out the window, doing something is what is happening and this something is removal of leadership via undemocratic methods.




    Democracy is not perfect but its a better alternative than the rest




    And if the said government pisses away the ability to repay the loans does that give other states the right to interfere in the politics of this state? whats next invade Greece to get paid back??

    Why not, why not give all people in eurozone a say on a basic question

    YES do everything to save the euro
    NO start making plans to transition each and every state out of the euro and back to national currencies

    Or would that be too democratic for you? The above would certainly clear the air and give a clear mandate to politicians on what course of action to take.


    Or how about an easier option, ask the German people whether they want to exit the euro, Germany exiting the euro would not cause a bank run in Germany and would weaken the currency making it easier for the rest to get on

    Leaving aside my amazement that you can manage to type with those two conflicting voices screaming at you from inside your head in what socialist, dictatorial nirvana are you residing when you believe that either Angela can ignore her electorate when it comes to imposing terms on borrowers, or that Mario can ignore his mandate when it comes to imposing terms on borrowers that he is already in breach of his mandate in lending to?

    Lets put this into some context shall we. Reuters estimate that Germany has benefited to the tune of €2-300 bn from their membership of the euro.

    An amount surely not to be sniffled at.

    Unless of course your name is the BTP market in which case €300bn ain't a whole lot, about the amount that needs to be rolled over in the next 2 years. Germany cannot save Italy, even if they wanted to. The Italian bond market of €1.9trn is larger than the Bund market. Were Germany to underwrite the entirely of it, their debt to GDP would be the envy of Japan and Zimbabwe and no-one else. Even Greece wouldn't envy that debt to GDP.

    So Mario should blow most of his resources in an attempt (which may, or may not be successful) to save Silvio, who has, it must be said, gone out on a rotten limb to save himself from prosecution at the expense of his nation.

    Remember that before Silvio stuck his oar in Spain was the next domino to fall (and Belgium after that, they don't even have a government FFS). So, in some dictatorial and not very capitalist nirvana the whole of Europe should have saved Silvio at the expense of his country and the rest of the eurozone? And that would have been in the dual names of capitalism and democracy?

    You know that there are drugs these days that can help with the voices?


  • #344
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    And if the said government pisses away the ability to repay the loans does that give other states the right to interfere in the politics of this state? whats next invade Greece to get paid back??

    I've tried, but I've failed to avoid asking you this question. How do you reconcile your apparent beliefs in setting the market free and not indenturing people which would be inherent in the nature of free markets?

    I'm a social democrat with enough education in the law to understand my beliefs, more Locke than Bentham, but with smidgens of Hobbes, Harte, Chinkin, Faludi, Sands etc thrown in so I can reconcile my contradictions. I just cannot reconcile yours.

    Mine (as a social democrat) are all areas of grey. Yours (as a libertarian) are black and white yet expressing outrage at lenders imposing conditions on their borrowers flies in the face of almost everything the Austrian School stand for (not least the application of logic).


  • #345
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Defaulting on unsustainable debt is an act of war? Whats next you'll bring Hitler into the thread :rolleyes: oh wait lets forget that whole bit of German history and its Versailles/WW1 reparations roots ... :rolleyes:
    I guess it was way too much to ask that you'd answer the question.


  • #346
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Can you not see the obvious contradiction in that statement?

    There is no contradiction in what I wrote. Let me make this crystal clear for you. Asking the people a question is NOT an expellable offense. To believe, as beeftotheheels does, that asking a question automatically puts EU membership in jeopardy is a very worrying misconception.

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


  • #347
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I refuse to subscribe to the idea that doing the wrong thing of your own free will..

    Who says the Greeks would do the wrong thing?

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

    I think it's safe to say he knows his own people better than you.


  • #348
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    cyberhog wrote: »
    There is no contradiction in what I wrote. Let me make this crystal clear for you. Asking the people a question is NOT an expellable offense. To believe, as beeftotheheels does, that asking a question automatically puts EU membership in jeopardy is a very worrying misconception.

    Ah, no - you've misinterpreted both beef and djpbarry, I fear. Asking the question in itself doesn't jeopardise Greece's membership, but returning a No certainly would - and self-evidently, asking the question makes a No possible. So:
    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.

    The 'contradiction' - and I wouldn't quite call it one myself, 'paradox' being a better word - is that holding a referendum quite obviously can put Greece's EU membership in jeopardy, because asking the question implies the possibility of a No, and a No would probably result in a Greek exit.

    Nobody (except you, and you're only claiming it on behalf of others, and incorrectly) is claiming that the referendum itself is the problem. A No vote, on the other hand, certainly would be.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #349
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Ah, no - you've misinterpreted both beef and djpbarry, I fear.

    I think not.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    asking the question implies the possibility of a No

    Unless you have a reading comphrehension problem you know full well that beeftotheheels mentioned nothing about the result being the factor that could jeopardise Greece's membership.

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

    This sentence is quite clearly suggesting it's impossible to hold a referendum without jeopardizing Greece's EU membership.That Papandreou would have had such a thought is absurd because as you yourself acknowledge.

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Asking the question in itself doesn't jeopardise Greece's membership

    And that's all Papandreou wanted to do, he just wanted to ask the question.


  • #350
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Well, I'll make it just that little bit simpler, and then leave it. In honour of your concerns I'll make it a reading comprehension exercise of suitable complexity.

    Imagine you're at a party. There's no suggestion that you have to leave the party. You decide to flip a coin, and leave the party if it comes up heads.

    Your friend says "don't do that - you're running the risk that you might leave!".

    Your friend has?

    a) a problem with coin-flipping

    b) no problem with coin-flipping

    You - apparently - would respond aggressively to his outrageous opposition to coin-flipping.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #351
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    cyberhog wrote: »
    This sentence is quite clearly suggesting it's impossible to hold a referendum without jeopardizing Greece's EU membership.That Papandreou would have had such a thought is absurd because as you yourself acknowledge.
    Um... exactly!

    JEOPARDISING - Verb: Put (someone or something) into a situation in which there is a danger of loss, harm, or failure.

    It would have been impossible to hold a referendum (as suggested) because there was a danger that the referendum would fail and cause loss and harm.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Unless you have a reading comphrehension problem you know full well that beeftotheheels mentioned nothing about the result being the factor that could jeopardise Greece's membership.

    In case you are in any doubt Scofflaw and Freudianslippers have spelled out exactly what I said, you clearly need to read Freudian's post or check out a dictionary for a definition of the word "jeopardise".

    If I drive at 160kph on an R road into town I am jeopardising my life. I may make it to my destination, I may crash. Who knows, there is a significant risk that, at that speed, I could be involved in a fatal crash.

    After I have crashed into a brick wall (thus ending my life) it would no longer be correct to say, at that stage that I was jeopardising my life.


  • #353
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Nobody (except you, and you're only claiming it on behalf of others, and incorrectly) is claiming that the referendum itself is the problem. A No vote, on the other hand, certainly would be.

    By virtue of me agreeing with cyberhog on this the above is incorrect. Despite the statements to the contrary Merkel and Sarkozy had a problem with the referendum. If they had no problem with it they would not have felt the need to comment on it in the way they did.
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    In case you are in any doubt Scofflaw and Freudianslippers have spelled out exactly what I said, you clearly need to read Freudian's post or check out a dictionary for a definition of the word "jeopardise".

    If I drive at 160kph on an R road into town I am jeopardising my life. I may make it to my destination, I may crash. Who knows, there is a significant risk that, at that speed, I could be involved in a fatal crash.

    After I have crashed into a brick wall (thus ending my life) it would no longer be correct to say, at that stage that I was jeopardising my life.
    To much patronising on this forum- Surely alternative views can be debated without need for this. I think the question initially made by cyberhog was that when a country wishes to get the opinion of its people that it should be allowed without fear of interference from other nations. Surely Greece can make up its own mind what a no vote would mean without a Merkel- Sarkozy announcement of it. The issue seems to be missed in the rush to explain what "jeopardise" means. And in any case perhaps given the choice the Greeks might have chosen to leave the Eurozone.


  • #354
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I think the question initially made by cyberhog was that when a country wishes to get the opinion of its people that it should be allowed without fear of interference from other nations.
    Even if a possible outcome of such opinion-seeking has the potential to be extremely damaging to those other nations?


  • #355
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    By virtue of me agreeing with cyberhog on this the above is incorrect. Despite the statements to the contrary Merkel and Sarkozy had a problem with the referendum. If they had no problem with it they would not have felt the need to comment on it in the way they did.

    I don't think either of you have shown that there was a problem with holding a referendum in itself, though.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    To much patronising on this forum- Surely alternative views can be debated without need for this. I think the question initially made by cyberhog was that when a country wishes to get the opinion of its people that it should be allowed without fear of interference from other nations. Surely Greece can make up its own mind what a no vote would mean without a Merkel- Sarkozy announcement of it. The issue seems to be missed in the rush to explain what "jeopardise" means. And in any case perhaps given the choice the Greeks might have chosen to leave the Eurozone.

    Why do Merkel and Sarkozy have no right to say it, though? Even on the narrowest interpretation the referendum would have been on the acceptance/rejection of a deal with France and Germany - something I think gives them immediately a reason - and justification - to comment on the meaning of the outcome of the referendum. It would have been quite possible for the referendum to have been a "Yes for Jobs/No to Conscription" farce like Lisbon, but with the outcome far more serious for Greece.

    To be honest, it seems to me that your position (and that of cyberhog), while dressed up as democratic concern, is just nationalism, because your view appears to be that nobody but the Greeks may make statements on a Greek referendum - a position which I have to say I consider pretty daft, because even if one believed it to be desirable, it's totally impossible. Nor do I even consider it desirable - in a referendum, my view would be that the widest possible effort is to be made by voters to reckon up the consequences of their vote. Logically the effect of limiting comment on the referendum to within the voting nation is to reduce the information available to voters. Why is that desirable?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #356
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Even if a possible outcome of such opinion-seeking has the potential to be extremely damaging to those other nations?
    That is the issue summarised very well. Merkel and Sarkozy felt that the potential danger to their own people warranted interference to steer the Greek MP's towards the type of government they have now. This may have been the democratic will of their own countries (I think this was posted already). To me it seems that it does not matter then what the Greek people want as it was another nations preference that they could not vote on accepting the bailout deal. This does not deal with any perceived rights and wrongs of the situation.


  • #357
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    That is the issue summarised very well. Merkel and Sarkozy felt that the potential danger to their own people warranted interference to steer the Greek MP's towards the type of government they have now. This may have been the democratic will of their own countries (I think this was posted already). To me it seems that it does not matter then what the Greek people want as it was another nations preference that they could not vote on accepting the bailout deal. This does not deal with any perceived rights and wrongs of the situation.
    You're dancing around the issue. A Greek referendum could have had devastating consequences for other countries. That makes it no longer their decision alone to make.

    If Austria wanted to hold a referendum on whether or not to dump toxic waste into the Danube on the Slovakian border, do you think Slovakia, Hungary et al should keep their opinions to themselves, because they have no right to interfere in Austrian democracy?


  • #358
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't think either of you have shown that there was a problem with holding a referendum in itself, though.

    You are correct and it is not possible to definitively show this. So we judge on what we know. We know that Merkel and Sarkozy were interested in the referendum and made direct comment on what should be asked. We know that this spooked Greek MP's and as a result of their opposition to it the idea was shelved. Whether this would have happened without the outside influence and comment is debatable. My view on this is that Merkel and Sarkozy only commented on the referendum as they did have a problem with it. I don't recall them making any statements on the 2 recent Irish referenda.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Why do Merkel and Sarkozy have no right to say it, though? Even on the narrowest interpretation the referendum would have been on the acceptance/rejection of a deal with France and Germany - something I think gives them immediately a reason - and justification - to comment on the meaning of the outcome of the referendum. It would have been quite possible for the referendum to have been a "Yes for Jobs/No to Conscription" farce like Lisbon, but with the outcome far more serious for Greece.

    To be honest, it seems to me that your position (and that of cyberhog), while dressed up as democratic concern, is just nationalism, because your view appears to be that nobody but the Greeks may make statements on a Greek referendum - a position which I have to say I consider pretty daft, because even if one believed it to be desirable, it's totally impossible. Nor do I even consider it desirable - in a referendum, my view would be that the widest possible effort is to be made by voters to reckon up the consequences of their vote. Logically the effect of limiting comment on the referendum to within the voting nation is to reduce the information available to voters. Why is that desirable?

    Whether Merkel and Sarkozy have the right to interfere is a fair debate. We started off from a position where people said they had not interfered.

    Just to clarify that "nobody but the Greeks may make statements on a Greek referendum" as suggested above is not my view (I must have been unclear). My position was and is that there was interference in Greek affairs, whether that interference is correct or not would need more discussion. This is where my point started


  • #359
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're dancing around the issue. A Greek referendum could have had devastating consequences for other countries. That makes it no longer their decision alone to make.

    If Austria wanted to hold a referendum on whether or not to dump toxic waste into the Danube on the Slovakian border, do you think Slovakia, Hungary et al should keep their opinions to themselves, because they have no right to interfere in Austrian democracy?

    As per my previous post I think it is always open to debate as to whether a country should interfere or not in another nations dealings, this is shown throughout history. If we leave out the rights and wrongs is it accepted that Merkel and Sarkozy did interfere?


  • #360
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    As per my previous post I think it is always open to debate as to whether a country should interfere or not in another nations dealings, this is shown throughout history. If we leave out the rights and wrongs is it accepted that Merkel and Sarkozy did interfere?
    They expressed a view. The Greek parliament took that view into account when making its decision.

    You could stretch a point and call that interference, but only if you really, really wanted to see it that way.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ...Surely Greece can make up its own mind what a no vote would mean without a Merkel- Sarkozy announcement of it....

    much as i would never wish to enigrate our beloved Greek Brothers - they don't, as yet, seem to have demonstrated much in the way of being able to understand the consequences of their actions, or vote for politicians who will tell them the downsides of any particular action.

    isn't that the fundament building block of the Greek problem - that they don't believe there are consequences to their actions?

    added to which Germany and France have the right to act in their own self interest - its not in their interest for the Euro to collapse either in the period while Greece decides whether it wants to go bankrupt or not, or after the Greeks decide that they don't want to pay for stuff, but don't want to go bankrupt either - they didn't stop the referendum, they merely said 'if you do this, we'll do that': and so the now informed Greek electorate decided (again, democracy is motre than having referenda) that they would, in the light of this new information, change policy - and government.

    niether interferred in Greek democracy, they merely informed it - unlike their idiot government - which allowed Greeks to make a more informed decision than they would otherwise have made.


Advertisement