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…910111315

Comments

  • #362
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    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.

    You must have missed quite a bit here and elsewhere, then! They made quite a lot of comments, and every time either of them opened their mouths there was a set of outraged denunciations...which appeared not to happen for statements by UKIP, OpenEurope, the UK redtops, and so on.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    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

    I think that collapses down again to the same basic point - that Merkel and Sarkozy are foreigners. Do you consider Papandreou's comments as "interference in Greek affairs"?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #363
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Papademos is PM.


  • #364
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You must have missed quite a bit here and elsewhere, then! They made quite a lot of comments, and every time either of them opened their mouths there was a set of outraged denunciations...which appeared not to happen for statements by UKIP, OpenEurope, the UK redtops, and so on.

    Fair enough- I will rephrase- I don't recall them making any outspoken statements on the 2 recent Irish referenda. Certainly not to the extent where the end result would be the cancelation of a referendum.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Do you consider Papandreou's comments as "interference in Greek affairs"?
    Yes


  • #365
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ...Yes

    eh?

    how in the name of all that holy can the Greek Prime Minister 'interfere' in Greek domestic affairs?

    it that a bit like me 'interfering' in my choice between lamb or chicken curry?


  • #366
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    OS119 wrote: »
    eh?

    how in the name of all that holy can the Greek Prime Minister 'interfere' in Greek domestic affairs?

    it that a bit like me 'interfering' in my choice between lamb or chicken curry?
    It is his job to interfere in greek affairs if necessary. For example his proposal of a referendum could be interpreted as interference; as in the bailout deal looked to be agreed and set for implementation in Greece until Papandreou interfered in the process.
    Going back to Scofflaws question it possibly depends on which comments refered to but I was trying not to avoid answering directly.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭carveone


    I'm not sure the Greeks can get a word in edgeways:

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/europes-insult-diplomacy-11032011-gfx.html


  • #368
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Papademos is PM.

    That will keep France and Germany happy. He is a banker and I think not an elected member of parliament.


  • #369
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    OS119 wrote:
    eh?

    how in the name of all that holy can the Greek Prime Minister 'interfere' in Greek domestic affairs?

    it that a bit like me 'interfering' in my choice between lamb or chicken curry?
    It is his job to interfere in greek affairs if necessary. For example his proposal of a referendum could be interpreted as interference; as in the bailout deal looked to be agreed and set for implementation in Greece until Papandreou interfered in the process.
    Going back to Scofflaws question it possibly depends on which comments refered to but I was trying not to avoid answering directly.

    No, that's fine. If that's your definition of 'interfering' - that is, "influencing in some way" as opposed to "inappropriately meddling with" - then I'm happy enough to agree that German and French comments obviously have influenced the Greek choice as to whether to hold a referendum.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #370
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    It is his job to interfere in greek affairs if necessary.
    It was his job to manage Greek affairs, surely?


  • #371
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    That will keep France and Germany happy. He is a banker and I think not an elected member of parliament.

    if he can count that will make Germany happy...


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It was his job to manage Greek affairs, surely?
    Yes. Its pedantics about literal definitions of words and probably not important but you are correct in what you say above. It is also correct to say "It is his job to interfere in greek affairs if necessary" in the way I explained, i.e. when methods of hinderance are required as part of the management.


  • #373
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    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.

    If it's impossible to hold a referendum (i.e. to ask the people a question) without jeopardising Greece's EU membership then how can the following statement be true?

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


  • #374
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »

    To much patronising on this forum-

    +1

    The patronisingly superior attitudes we see here are quite common among people who stubbornly refuse to accept what is apparent to most honest observers.

    Note: Emphasis added to highlight the salient points.
    11 (Bloomberg) -- Germany and France's drive to force Greece to honor its euro commitments....

    on Nov. 2 in Cannes, France, when they warned outgoing Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou that a planned referendum on his country’s latest bailout must serve as a ballot on whether Greece wants to stay in the euro.

    “The referendum will revolve around nothing less than the question: does Greece want to stay in the euro, yes or no?” Merkel said with Sarkozy beside her.

    While the ploy worked and Papandreou shelved the referendum, it undermined the message of the euro’s founding treaty that membership was “irrevocable” -- a line Sarkozy and Merkel had stuck to in the two years since the crisis broke out.


    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-10/merkel-s-greek-strategy-risks-backfiring-as-exit-routes-mappped.html

    The fact that it is clear to the world's leading business and financial commentators that Greece was forced to shelve the referendum will be conveniently ignored by the boards.ie adherents of an EU superstate. They'll just continue to serve up some more of their condescending analogies all the while oblivious to the fact that their views are not widely accepted.


  • #375
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    cyberhog wrote: »
    If it's impossible to hold a referendum (i.e. to ask the people a question) without jeopardising Greece's EU membership then how can the following statement be true?
    Asking the question in itself doesn't jeopardise Greece's membership

    You're making out that what is disliked is "asking the people a question" (so undemocratic! boo!), and that's not what the problem is. The only issue is one of the possible outcomes - it's not a problem with the method. If Papandreou had said he was going to decide on the bailout package by tossing a coin, the problem would be the same - that if the Greeks reject the bailout package, then they're up the creek. They can hold a referendum, or a coin-toss, or take the auspices, but the problem is the same - rejection of the bailout package opens the door to being outside the EU.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #376
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    cyberhog wrote: »
    ...ignored by the boards.ie adherents of an EU superstate. They'll just continue to serve up some more of their condescending analogies all the while oblivious to the fact that their views are not widely accepted.

    Your rhetoric is quite tiresome. You've reached your conclusion and no amount of showing you clearly the opposite has moved you one bit.


  • #377
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,128 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You're making out that what is disliked is "asking the people a question" (so undemocratic! boo!), and that's not what the problem is. The only issue is one of the possible outcomes - it's not a problem with the method. If Papandreou had said he was going to decide on the bailout package by tossing a coin, the problem would be the same - that if the Greeks reject the bailout package, then they're up the creek. They can hold a referendum, or a coin-toss, or take the auspices, but the problem is the same - rejection of the bailout package opens the door to being outside the EU.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    The above is truly puzzling.

    Apparently, theres no problem with asking a question as such, only that the question might result in an answer that isnt acceptable. Hence the question is not asked, to avoid the unacceptable answer. But there isnt a problem with asking people questions as such and its ridiculous to claim that there is. Asking a question is totally fine, so long as the people give you the answer you want to hear.

    In other news, the Italians parliament voted in reforms today. I presume the Italians were allowed to go through with this pretence of voting because they were going to give an acceptable answer.

    The narrative here is the same as has existed all throughout this disastrous series of derranged policymaking since 2008 - "There is no alternative" - and all efforts are taken to avoid and prevent any alternative being explored, debated or weighed up.

    And things get worse and worse and worse...


  • #378
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Sand wrote: »
    The above is truly puzzling.

    I know how you feel. ;)

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You're making out that what is disliked is "asking the people a question"[/n] (so undemocratic! boo!), and that's not what the problem is.

    I'm making out? I'm doing nothing of the sort my friend! The only people on this thread who made out that asking the question was a problem was beeftotheheels and FreudianSlippers.

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

    Any honest observer can quite clearly see that beeftotheheels is suggesting it would be impossible to hold a referendum without jeopardizing Greece's EU membership.


    FreudianSlippers backed up beeftotheheels' comment.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It would have been impossible to hold a referendum (as suggested) ...

    Now Scofflaw as you and I both know suggesting it would be impossible for a referendum to held without jeopardising Greece's EU membership is the same as saying it would be impossible to ask the people a question without jeopardising Greece's EU membership.

    And you and I both know.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Asking the question in itself doesn't jeopardise Greece's membership

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    that's not what the problem is. The only issue is one of the possible outcomes...

    So while getting this message through to beeftotheheels and his ilk has been like trying to pull an articulated truck from quicksand with a chain of paper clips I'm just glad that you've finally acknowledged the flaw in beeftotheheels' argument.


  • #379
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sand wrote: »
    The above is truly puzzling.

    Apparently, theres no problem with asking a question as such, only that the question might result in an answer that isnt acceptable. Hence the question is not asked, to avoid the unacceptable answer. But there isnt a problem with asking people questions as such and its ridiculous to claim that there is. Asking a question is totally fine, so long as the people give you the answer you want to hear.

    In other news, the Italians parliament voted in reforms today. I presume the Italians were allowed to go through with this pretence of voting because they were going to give an acceptable answer.

    The narrative here is the same as has existed all throughout this disastrous series of derranged policymaking since 2008 - "There is no alternative" - and all efforts are taken to avoid and prevent any alternative being explored, debated or weighed up.

    And things get worse and worse and worse...

    Shrug - it's not that "the answer isn't acceptable", it's that the answer has certain consequences precisely because it would be accepted.

    Again, I don't get this idea that people are supposed to be able to make decisions without any regard to the consequences, and that anything that acknowledges consequences is somehow less than democratic. To me, that seems the opposite of democracy - it's a teenage idea of 'freedom'. Democratic decisions don't take place in a vacuum, except perhaps in some people's heads.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #380
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,038 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    in other words as Sir Humphries would say: this issue is far too important to be left to the people to decide on ;)


  • #381
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't get this idea that people are supposed to be able to make decisions without any regard to the consequences, and that anything that acknowledges consequences is somehow less than democratic.

    The consequences of a NO vote were by no means clear ,as Jean-Claude Juncker put it:
    “It will depend on the manner in which the question will be exactly formulated and on what the Greeks exactly vote on,”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15549352

    But Merkel and Sarkozy were not about to let Greek politicians decide for themselves how to formuate the question.The EU overlords took it upon themselves to say what the Greeks would vote on.
    “The referendum will revolve around nothing less than the question: does Greece want to stay in the euro, yes or no?” Merkel said with Sarkozy beside her.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-10/merkel-s-greek-strategy-risks-backfiring-as-exit-routes-mappped.html

    Greece was given this ultimatum in order to put pressure on the cabinet to shelve the referendum, and it worked. The cabient blinked and the referendum was shelved and we never got to see exactly what the Greeks would have voted on. So we'll never know what the actually consequences of a NO vote would have been.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,128 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Shrug - it's not that "the answer isn't acceptable", it's that the answer has certain consequences precisely because it would be accepted.

    Again, I don't get this idea that people are supposed to be able to make decisions without any regard to the consequences, and that anything that acknowledges consequences is somehow less than democratic. To me, that seems the opposite of democracy - it's a teenage idea of 'freedom'. Democratic decisions don't take place in a vacuum, except perhaps in some people's heads.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Of course they have to make decisions with a mind to their consequences. Thats a given. They might weigh up the consequences differently than you do.

    Whats very unclear to me though is that theres people who think it blatantly and completely obvious that the bailout deal is very much in the interests of the Greek people and nation, being far better than the consequences of the alternative. They consider it so obvious, that proposing alternatives is seen as ridiculous or foolish.

    And yet, despite considering this proposal so self evidently superior to any given alternative - they are equally convinced that if they had to explain, justify and defend the plan to people, the people would certainly not agree that there was no alternative.

    Its cant be very reassuring to consider that "the plan" is of such quality that even its adherents do not believe in its merits.


  • #383
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Let's make something abundantly clear so we can stop doing this stupid dance around a set of words.

    Holding a referendum is not the issue here. If the Greeks were asked whether they'd prefer Ouzo or Retsina as their national beverage, it wouldn't jeopardise EU membership.
    However, the proposed referendum left a large amount of uncertainty in which a No vote could have meant an end to eurozone membership.

    If the question is, could allowing the Greek people to vote (as proposed) jeopardise membership then the answer is clearly yes.


  • #384
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭carveone


    Sand wrote: »
    Of course they have to make decisions with a mind to their consequences. Thats a given. They might weigh up the consequences differently than you do.

    And I would hope that the maximum amount of information would be made available regardless of its source. That source not being solely the Government as it always seems to have its own political reasons for doing anything.

    In the recent 30th amendment referendum, the Irish government wasn't particularly interested in discussing all the ramifications and consequences of a Yes vote. In fact they criticised the Referendum Commission for attempting to do so. After they'd lost of course.

    If that referendum had (and I'm not saying it did or didn't, it's just a point of argument) impinged on the ECHR in some way, I'd expect someone to point it out, solely in the interest of the Irish people having the maximum amount of information available to them.

    Let's say for argument's sake the Irish government decided to have a referendum on homosexuality - ie: to make it illegal. It's not terribly far fetched as it was illegal before. This is contrary to Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. I'd expect the government not to mention this because, well, they'd be dicks for thinking this would be a good idea int the first place.

    But I'd expect the EU commission to point that a Yes vote would endanger our ability to stay in the EU. I'd also expect that to be done in as diplomatic a manner as possible, considering the way old animosities are stirred up by one country openly saying WTF! For example, Britain would almost certainly throw a complete wobbler and people here would complain that Britain was interfering in our democracy.

    Germany and France should have left it to the EU commission, it was terribly poor diplomacy on their part and left people believing that they run the show (money runs the show :p)
    sand wrote:
    And yet, despite considering this proposal so self evidently superior to any given alternative - they are equally convinced that if they had to explain, justify and defend the plan to people, the people would certainly not agree that there was no alternative.

    I don't believe this for a moment. I think the timing was just awful. I think a referendum at that time would have been like putting a gun to the head of the Greek people, and solely for political purposes. There just was not enough time then.

    Now it is different. They absolutely need full cooporation from the Greek populace in order to proceed. They should absolutely have a full and open discussion with the populace as a whole on what they want to do.

    Otherwise we'll just be back here again in 6 months.


  • #385
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,128 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    @FreudianSlippers
    Let's make something abundantly clear so we can stop doing this stupid dance around a set of words.

    Holding a referendum is not the issue here. If the Greeks were asked whether they'd prefer Ouzo or Retsina as their national beverage, it wouldn't jeopardise EU membership.
    However, the proposed referendum left a large amount of uncertainty in which a No vote could have meant an end to eurozone membership.

    If the question is, could allowing the Greek people to vote (as proposed) jeopardise membership then the answer is clearly yes.

    Actually Papandreou called the referendum on the issue of Greek acceptance of the bailout offered to them - not on Greek membership of the Euro, let alone the EU itself which is frankly hysterical (The "No capital controls" rule is carved in the same stone as the "No bailouts" rule). It was a good move which offered the Greeks the chance to examine the situation, weigh up the consequences and make an empowering decision.

    As I've said - if the argument for the deal is so overwhelmingly logical and well founded, then there should be no doubt about its outcome - total, if grudging, acceptance by the Greeks. The referdenum ought to have been good news, a chance for the Greeks to buy into the deal and remove any doubt of their commitment to upholding its objectives.

    Because its such a good deal compared to the alternatives. Right? I mean, its completely ridiculous to claim theres any alternative to following whatever birdbrained scheme comes out of the ECB and the Eurozone summits...what credibility could those ridiculous ideas have if they were to be examined by the Greeks through a referendum?

    Surely, to the believers, the Greek referendum ought to have been a slam-dunk victory for common sense, with the least worst option being chosen? I mean, the plan is the least worst option, right? Right?

    @carveone
    And I would hope that the maximum amount of information would be made available regardless of its source.

    I'm sure Merkel and Sarkozy could simply provide them with the same information they provided Papandreou. Seemed to have worked a treat on him.
    I don't believe this for a moment. I think the timing was just awful. I think a referendum at that time would have been like putting a gun to the head of the Greek people, and solely for political purposes. There just was not enough time then.

    Now it is different. They absolutely need full cooporation from the Greek populace in order to proceed. They should absolutely have a full and open discussion with the populace as a whole on what they want to do.

    Otherwise we'll just be back here again in 6 months.

    Whats changed in the last couple of days that makes the timing for a referendum so much better now?


  • #386
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Sand wrote: »
    Actually Papandreou called the referendum on the issue of Greek acceptance of the bailout offered to them

    Although I freely admit to not being well versed in the Greek constitution, I am fairly sure that it takes more than a decision of one politician to "call a referendum" there.

    Usually there is a legislative process to be gone through before one can be held and I never got the impression that there was ever a majority in the Greek Parliament in favour of Papandreou's suggested referendum (even his own Finance Minister seemed completely opposed to the idea).

    As such, the issue of whether a referendum would have been a good idea or not is a bit moot because if a majority of the Greek Parliament wouldn't support Papandreou's suggested referendum it was dead in the water right from the start.


  • #387
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sand wrote: »
    Of course they have to make decisions with a mind to their consequences. Thats a given. They might weigh up the consequences differently than you do.

    Whats very unclear to me though is that theres people who think it blatantly and completely obvious that the bailout deal is very much in the interests of the Greek people and nation, being far better than the consequences of the alternative. They consider it so obvious, that proposing alternatives is seen as ridiculous or foolish.

    And yet, despite considering this proposal so self evidently superior to any given alternative - they are equally convinced that if they had to explain, justify and defend the plan to people, the people would certainly not agree that there was no alternative.

    Its cant be very reassuring to consider that "the plan" is of such quality that even its adherents do not believe in its merits.

    That carries the interesting implication that the merits of not smoking are evidently not large, since people continue to smoke.

    To put it another way, it's quite obvious that people can and do vote for things that aren't objectively in their best interests, based on all sorts of other concerns - whichever way one feels about Lisbon, for example, that's an obvious conclusion from the two votes.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #388
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    View wrote: »

    Usually there is a legislative process to be gone through before one can be held and I never got the impression that there was ever a majority in the Greek Parliament in favour of Papandreou's suggested referendum (even his own Finance Minister seemed completely opposed to the idea).


    The cabinet had given Papandreou it's unanimous support. The Finance Minister only got spooked after the meeting in Cannes where Merkel had the audacity to threaten to withhold aid to Greece unless the outcome of the referendum was guaranteed to be in favour of the bailout.
    "we’re saying very clearly the sixth tranche can only be dispersed once... any doubt as to the outcome of the announced referendum are removed. That is to say there is a positive vote on this referendum."

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1103/1224306980869.html

    Evangelos Venizelos acquiescence was clear.
    “Greece’s position within the euro area is a historic conquest of the country that cannot be put in doubt ... [and this] cannot depend on a referendum,“

    ...

    "What is important is for the sixth tranche to be disbursed, without any distractions or delay,"

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greek-officials-disagree-over-referendum-2011-11-03


    Now if that isn't clear evidence of interference in Greek domestic affairs I don't know what is.


  • #389
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,316 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Well a No would definitely have meant a rejection of the bailout and so the sixth tranche would not be forthcoming. Stating the obvious I would have thought.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #390
    cyberhog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭cyberhog


    K-9 wrote: »
    Well a No would definitely have meant a rejection of the bailout and so the sixth tranche would not be forthcoming. Stating the obvious I would have thought.

    Read it carefully.
    we’re saying very clearly the sixth tranche can only be dispersed once.. any doubt as to the outcome of the announced referendum are removed.

    Dr Merkel wasn't talking about what would happen in the event of a rejection, she was saying to Greece you won't get the money unless it is clear beforehand that the vote will support the bailout.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,316 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    cyberhog wrote: »
    Read it carefully.



    Dr Merkel wasn't talking about what would happen in the event of a rejection, she was saying to Greece you won't get the money unless it is clear beforehand that the vote will support the bailout.

    Okay. Why would they give the money if it wasn't clear?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement