Greeks having a referendum on bailout

beeftotheheels · 13-11-2011 09:27AM

cyberhog wrote: »

Read it carefully.

“This is why we’re saying very clearly the sixth tranche can only be dispersed once Greece has adopted all of the parts of the decisions of the 27th of October and, additionally, any doubt as to the outcome of the announced referendum are removed. That is to say there is a positive vote on this referendum.”

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.

A) Quote things properly and

Try reading the words written instead of the words you wish had been written to support your position.

Clearly Dr Merkel is saying that the moneys can be released if the Greeks vote yes, thus her problem is clearly not with the referendum but with the consequences of a No vote. A point which several of us have made on this forum and which you reject, to the point of altering quotes and then telling posters to "read those (abbreviated) quotes very carefully"

cyberhog · 13-11-2011 09:48AM

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Try reading the words written instead of the words you wish had been written to support your position.

beeftotheheels I wish you would pay attention to your own advice you might actually learn something. :rolleyes:

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Clearly Dr Merkel is saying that the moneys can be released if the Greeks vote yes,

LOL You don't even realise what you've just written there do you? You my friend have just made a clear admission that Merkel was interfering in Greek domestic affairs.

cyberhog · 13-11-2011 09:49AM

K-9 wrote: »

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

You think the result of a referendum should be clear before the question has even been formulated? Wow, I have to say, I've read some pretty astonishing guff from the opposing side in this discussion but this latest post of yours is the most ridiculous and disturbing thing i've read yet.

K-9 · 13-11-2011 10:16AM

cyberhog wrote: »

You think the result of a referendum should be clear before the question has even been formulated? Wow, I have to say, I've read some pretty astonishing guff from the opposing side in this discussion but this latest post of yours is the most ridiculous and disturbing thing i've read yet.

Seriously, what actually is your whole point?

Obviously a no vote or a possible No vote would have ramifications for the bailout. Papendreou wanted a referendum to either accept or reject the deal.

Not being smart, but how can you not understand this? I'm starting to think you purposefully aren't getting it.

Edit: If Kenny called for a referendum tomorrow and German or French politicians said the same, I don't really see the problem. No money until you either accept or reject the deal. You don't get the keys to a house until the mortgage is signed!

K-9 · 13-11-2011 10:22AM

cyberhog wrote: »

You think the result of a referendum should be clear before the question has even been formulated? Wow, I have to say, I've read some pretty astonishing guff from the opposing side in this discussion but this latest post of yours is the most ridiculous and disturbing thing i've read yet.

Actually reading your post again, you've completely misread what he said, hence your exasperation! If you read what he said correctly, it's perfectly reasonable.

Think about what you're claiming he said. It would be idiotic, illogical and impossible!

Sand · 13-11-2011 01:11PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Perhaps the merits arent large enough to outweight the benefits they gain from smoking, in the eyes of those who continue to smoke? However, the majority of people do not smoke - given only 23.6% do smoke in Ireland it appears clear that the majority of people are voting in what you believe to be their best interests on that particular issue.

And the claimed consequences of the Greeks rejecting the bailout are many, many orders of magnitude greater than the consequences of smoking. If I understand the dire threats and predictions correctly, we arent talking about increasing their long term chances of an inevitability (death) - apparently the four horsemen of the apocalypse will descend upon Greece with widespread cannibalism occuring as the ATMS run out. Its all there in the Book of Revelations.

Surely, once the Greeks understand such how terrible the alternative is and recognise that "There is no alternative", a convincing referendum majority ought to have been a given.

And yet, the prospect of a referendum throws Europe into panick because theres so little confidence in the merits of the deal that no one believes it has a chance of being accepted if the people are consulted on what theyre being signed up to.

FreudianSlippers · 13-11-2011 01:29PM

Sand wrote: »

@FreudianSlippers

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.

I never said what the referendum was about... I simply said that the silly argument about whether or not the referendum or a referendum would jeopardise Greek EU or Eurozone membership is ridiculous.

Did it? Of course it did... a "No" vote would have posed a significant danger to Greece's Eurozone membership.

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.

I think you're placing far too much trust in the hands of the electorate in Greece.

There is a real danger that these people will vote for no austerity no matter what the risks are - I think that has been made abundantly clear by the Greeks. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

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?

You are basing these comments on so much flawed logic in an attempt to be sarcastic that I think you're actually making a counterpoint to your own beliefs.

oscarBravo · 13-11-2011 07:00PM

Sand wrote: »

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.

The rather important point that you're missing is that the question is a wider one than that. It's conceivable that rejecting the bailout deal could ultimately result in a better outcome for Greece, although at this stage I think "marginally less catastrophic" is the best they could hope for, and I'd take a fair bit of persuading that default is the better option.

The wider question is whether it's better for the rest of Europe for Greece to default. This isn't a question for Greece alone. Through decades of breathtaking incompetence and corruption, they've essentially forfeited the right to be in sole control of their own destiny.

If you're standing on a ledge contemplating jumping off, you can make a case that it's your decision alone. If you're tied by a rope to another person, it seems only fair that they get a say also.

Sand · 13-11-2011 10:27PM

@FreudianSlippers

I never said what the referendum was about...

Great, glad we're agreed then.

I think you're placing far too much trust in the hands of the electorate in Greece.

There is a real danger that these people will vote for no austerity no matter what the risks are - I think that has been made abundantly clear by the Greeks. They want their cake and they want to eat it too.

Well they wont be voting on the acceptance of austerity either. Whatever the Greeks do, whatever they do - they are going to have to balance their budget and only spend what they can raise in state revenue. So austerity for Greece is unavoidable.

Again, given that people seem to get very confused, very easily - Greece cannot vote to avoid austerity. They will have austerity no matter what happens.

But if they vote to reject the bailout offered by the Eurozone, and are willing to accept the consequences of that, then it is their decision. The referendum ought to have been positive news in that it was a chance to confront the problem, discuss it, explore alternative and then have the Greek people empower themselves by taking ownership of the austerity program. As it stands, the austerity programme will fail (as it has been failing already) because the Greeks view it as a foreign imposed scheme.

You are basing these comments on so much flawed logic in an attempt to be sarcastic that I think you're actually making a counterpoint to your own beliefs.

Well, given the believers find the plan so self evidently brilliant that its apparently up to others to justify divergence from it, then surely it ought to be immediately apparent that the its the least worst option. Why is considered so hard to explain the plan to the Greek population? Given the plan is so dependant on the Greeks it would seem useful to get their buy-in.

@OscarBravo

The rather important point that you're missing is that the question is a wider one than that. It's conceivable that rejecting the bailout deal could ultimately result in a better outcome for Greece, although at this stage I think "marginally less catastrophic" is the best they could hope for, and I'd take a fair bit of persuading that default is the better option.

I'm not missing that point. Its very clear that it would be extremely difficult to explain how this plan is in the interests of Greece when the idea of a referendum on it grips the continent with terror. I also agree that there isnt a solution for Greece that involves no risk or no pain.

The wider question is whether it's better for the rest of Europe for Greece to default. This isn't a question for Greece alone. Through decades of breathtaking incompetence and corruption, they've essentially forfeited the right to be in sole control of their own destiny.

If you're standing on a ledge contemplating jumping off, you can make a case that it's your decision alone. If you're tied by a rope to another person, it seems only fair that they get a say also.

Certainly, the implications of the Greek decision would have implications for the rest of Europe. It would certainly test a few of the badly worded and fuzzy articles in the European Treaties. And whatever the final answer delivered by the courts months or years later, the "facts on the ground" may have already determined their own solution.

But the situation isnt just that the rest of Europe has tied itself to a dangerous party in the shape of Greece, its also that Greece has tied itself to a dangerous party in the shape of the decision makers in the ECB and the main states of the Eurozone. Greece may have fixed the books to join, but the Eurozone couldnt pretend to be some guiless country bumpkins - there were several, including the German finance minister at the time, who were intensely suspicious of the Greeks qualification - but politics trumped reason. And whilst the Greeks were sly, it was the French and the Germans who first trampled all over the monetary and stability pact conditions when it suited them.

There are a couple of solutions to deal with the debt crisis - the ECB could inflate the Eurozone sovereigns out of it. The core could fund fiscal transfers (not lending, actual transfers) to the indebted periphery. Both of these options would objectively be better than the current scheme. But both have been ruled out by the core, in the interests of the core alone and this crazy, dangerous, destabilising route has been pursued where Greece is asked to destroy its own economy to appease political considerations of German and French politicians.

So in this suicidal hiking party, whose dragging who screaming over the ledge? The ECB has already claimed the Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and is rapidly stalking Spain in its puritanical quest. If its good enough for the core to dictate policy in line with only their own interests, then surely the Greeks cant be criticised for considering their options in line with their own national interests only.

oscarBravo · 13-11-2011 11:06PM

Sand wrote: »

So in this suicidal hiking party, whose dragging who screaming over the ledge? The ECB has already claimed the Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and is rapidly stalking Spain in its puritanical quest.

You continue to frame your argument as if Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain are the victims in a grand conspiracy by the ECB to destroy their economies to further the nefarious ends of France and Germany.

Ireland ****ed up Ireland's economy. We didn't need any help from France or Germany to do so. The same can be said of Italy, Portugal, Spain and above all Greece.

The most you can say is that perhaps France and Germany didn't do enough to prevent us ****ing up our own economies, but I'm having difficulty reconciling that with your expressed view that the EU should butt out of our business and let us solve our own problems our own way, even if that means ****ing up other countries worse than we already have.

I accept that the EU should have been more careful in reviewing Greece's figures - but you are effectively arguing that the victim of the fraud bears the greater responsibility than the fraudster, and should gracefully step aside while the fraudster decides how best to arrange his own affairs, at whatever cost to the victim - all the while the victim continues to foot the bill.

It's a strange point of view.

beeftotheheels · 13-11-2011 11:22PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You continue to frame your argument as if Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain are the victims in a grand conspiracy by the ECB to destroy their economies to further the nefarious ends of France and Germany.

You missed Friday's memo. France are in play, as are Austria (historically so symmetrical given 1931).

Belgium and Spain go without saying.

So the ECB is furthering Germany and Finland's nefarious ends, along with possibly those of Luxembourg and the Netherlands if they can avoid the worst of the Belgian fallout.

Sand · 14-11-2011 12:28AM

@OscarBravo

You continue to frame your argument as if Ireland, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain are the victims in a grand conspiracy by the ECB to destroy their economies to further the nefarious ends of France and Germany.

I think if you look at the bits before that sentence, and the bits after that sentence, it will provide the context for that single sentence which you decided to pick out and reply on. I think if you consider that sentence, in the context of the post it was in then it will take on a whole new light.

Try it out. Seriously, it'll help the discussion immensely.

To help you out - consider this:

1 - Greeces problems are entirely self created. Irelands problems are entirely self created. Italys problems are entirely self created. Portugals problems are entirely self created. Spains problems are entirely self created. In so far as they were wholly responsible for the policies pursued that created them.
2 - Most of these countries, particularly Greece, Ireland, are no longer responsble for the policies that are being pursued. And not for some time. They have lost sovereignty over their economic and fiscal decisions - you said as much yourself, as have those who have said the Greeks cant be allowed to decide their own policy via a referendum. The policies being applied to Greece and Ireland and the rest of the periphery are increasingly being devised by the brain trust in Frankfurt, Berlin and Paris.
3 - Problems are getting *worse* - not better. The German finance minister was apparently insufferable in the recent EU summit because he pointed out repeatedly that he had called for a managed Greek default 18 months previously when it would have only cost a third as much at that point. Who is responsible for the delay that tripled the cost? The ECB/Core consensus - which as recently as this summer was shrilly screaming "No default! No credit event! No restructuring!".

The Greeks are entirely to blame for the problems they created. The ECB/Core are responsible for sabotaging any attempt to deal with the crisis more decisively and earlier.

Hayte · 14-11-2011 12:37AM

Sand wrote: »

Perhaps the merits arent large enough to outweight the benefits they gain from smoking, in the eyes of those who continue to smoke? However, the majority of people do not smoke - given only 23.6% do smoke in Ireland it appears clear that the majority of people are voting in what you believe to be their best interests on that particular issue.

And the claimed consequences of the Greeks rejecting the bailout are many, many orders of magnitude greater than the consequences of smoking. If I understand the dire threats and predictions correctly, we arent talking about increasing their long term chances of an inevitability (death) - apparently the four horsemen of the apocalypse will descend upon Greece with widespread cannibalism occuring as the ATMS run out. Its all there in the Book of Revelations.

Surely, once the Greeks understand such how terrible the alternative is and recognise that "There is no alternative", a convincing referendum majority ought to have been a given.

And yet, the prospect of a referendum throws Europe into panick because theres so little confidence in the merits of the deal that no one believes it has a chance of being accepted if the people are consulted on what theyre being signed up to.

He has a very good point in the sense that alot of people don't vote rationally using evidence gathered in a logical and systematic manner. I would agree with you if we, as members of the electorate were broadly informed of the way our political system worked, where active participants in it and made decisions based upon logic rather than appeals to emotion.

The electorate is incredibly prone to spin, particularly spin on political and economic issues because these are things which are commonly delegated by the electorate to a professional political class.

A great example of this is the Alternative Vote referendum in the UK. Very few people actually understood how our electoral system works and what the difference between first past the post, alternative vote and single transferable vote were. Even the names are jargon terms. When it came to the referendum, the majority of the electorate simply stuck to the devil they knew and rejected AV in the face of incredibly brazen Tory spin doctoring.

Sand · 14-11-2011 12:57AM

@Hayte

He has a very good point in the sense that alot of people don't vote rationally using evidence gathered in a logical and systematic manner. I would agree with you if we, as members of the electorate were broadly informed of the way our political system worked, where active participants in it and made decisions based upon logic rather than appeals to emotion.

The electorate is incredibly prone to spin, particularly spin on political and economic issues because these are things which are commonly delegated by the electorate to a professional political class.

Sure, but thats an argument that can logically be extended to not allowing voting at all and imposing government by unaccountable technocrat. Theres been many times throughout history when democracy has been seen as a luxury that cant be indulged. Those werent good times marked by excellent policymaking. As it stands, Scofflaw had too little faith in the mob - despite peer pressure, the vast majority of Irish people dont smoke - entirely in line with an objective analysis of the results. Theres no evidence of widespread irrationality there.

I am not a fan of referendums myself, but only because I feel that people in Ireland at least treat them as a popularity vote on the government and so tend to vote for or against the measure due to some unrelated grudge. I dont think that this would be a problem in the Greek case - quite simply, the bailout or an alternative to it is far and away the most important decision facing the Greeks. Theres no grudge side issues to distract them from the question involved.

And whilst its claimed that individuals make better decisions than mobs, everyone in that voting booth will be making a decision as an individual. Lets face it, the claim that the wider group of people are too stupid to pursue their own interest does tend to be pleasing to those making it - as Orwell noted, "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."

Hayte · 14-11-2011 01:50AM

Nah I don't think thats true at all. I think its a good argument for people taking a more active and informed role in politics and part of that involves learning how to see through spin. On this forum I note that some people are getting quite good at spotting when there is a disingenuous argument coming their way. Some can even point out the specific breakdown in logic and explain it in an eloquent way that appeals not only rationally but also emotionally if its connected to issues you are personally invested in. That is how the idea spreads.

I don't think we disagree on any fundamental issues really. One of the remarkable things about the Greek referendum is just how few politicians actually cared to ask the electorate whether they wanted to sign up to massive soul destroying austerity in the "public interest". Papandreou did, but it may have been a politically calculated move and I doubt he called for a referendum out of a sincere desire for the electorate to assert itself directly.

The referendum is a somewhat blunt instrument of democracy but then again, any illusion that we have of modern Ireland or Greece being a democracy (in the classical sense) needs to be rethought. Its closer to a plutocracy and in that sense, a technical autocracy may even be preferable to it. I note that when it comes to Italy, people are beginning to point to Lamberto Dini's technocratic government of the mid 90s. That government wasn't so much technocratic in the strictest sense since it was more like a bipartisan effort to get through an economic rough patch so I guess history is repeating itself and not much in Italian politics has really changed.

cyberhog · 14-11-2011 05:33AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's conceivable that rejecting the bailout deal could ultimately result in a better outcome for Greece

A prefect reason why the Greek people have every right to have a referendum on the bailout.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The wider question is whether it's better for the rest of Europe for Greece to default. This isn't a question for Greece alone. Through decades of breathtaking incompetence and corruption, they've essentially forfeited the right to be in sole control of their own destiny.

If you're standing on a ledge contemplating jumping off, you can make a case that it's your decision alone. If you're tied by a rope to another person, it seems only fair that they get a say also.

Blame the victims! It wasn't the Greek people that helped the government of the day to mask the true extent of its deficit.

One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=all

You want to talk about fairness?

Is it fair that the Greek people are being forced to pay for the dirty dealings of unscrupulous bankers and politicians?

Is it fair that when an opportunity arises for the Greek people to have their say on whether or not they will accept such an unjust burden that they are denied that right?

I think it's clear that many of you don't give a damn about the real victims here.The European project is rotten to the core and it is the ordinary people who are suffering due to no real fault of their own.But hey, keep blaming the victims it's a good way to take the heat off unscrupulous bankers and politicians which is clearly where your true sympathy lies.

meglome · 14-11-2011 05:01PM

Hayte wrote: »

I don't think we disagree on any fundamental issues really. One of the remarkable things about the Greek referendum is just how few politicians actually cared to ask the electorate whether they wanted to sign up to massive soul destroying austerity in the "public interest". Papandreou did, but it may have been a politically calculated move and I doubt he called for a referendum out of a sincere desire for the electorate to assert itself directly.

I'm not sure Papandreou was genuine about the referendum either. However I wouldn't assume the Greek politicians were being undemocratic in some way. I think they were being realists, in that they knew full well the Greek people could vote No even if it was a terrible idea. As been said by others I don't see what so great about democracy when you take decisions that will makes things worse, and make things worse for your neighbours too. The Greeks repeatedly elected a government which cooked the books, didn't collect taxes properly and doesn't even know how many workers they had. I do feel sympathy that ordinary Greeks will suffer but they need to take a long hard look at themselves as to why.

cyberhog wrote: »

Blame the victims! It wasn't the Greek people that helped the government of the day to mask the true extent of its deficit.

This is the same type of thing you say about us and the EU, as if we are somehow completely separate and the decisions made were not with our support. The Greeks elected a government repeatedly... the dogs on the street knew corruption was widespread, that taxes were not being collected, that the whole Government apparatus was massively inefficient. Not everyone in Greece is equally to blame but they are for the most part victims of their own actions.

cyberhog wrote: »

I think it's clear that many of you don't give a damn about the real victims here.The European project is rotten to the core and it is the ordinary people who are suffering due to no real fault of their own.But hey, keep blaming the victims it's a good way to take the heat off unscrupulous bankers and politicians which is clearly where your true sympathy lies.

Yeah that's right we had no idea either when we kept electing Bertie top of the poll that he was corrupt and a liar. Sure we had no idea when Michael Lowry topped the poll that he was corrupt. etc etc etc. You reap what you sow.

cyberhog · 15-11-2011 07:39AM

meglome wrote: »

This is the same type of thing you say about us and the EU, as if we are somehow completely separate and the decisions made were not with our support. The Greeks elected a government repeatedly... the dogs on the street knew corruption was widespread, that taxes were not being collected, that the whole Government apparatus was massively inefficient. Not everyone in Greece is equally to blame but they are for the most part victims of their own actions.

What a load of old tosh.

In 2009 the Greeks voted out the party responsible for steering the country right into the debt crisis. We did the same in Ireland.

The outgoing prime minister, Costas Karamanlis, had called the poll midway through his term in office, hoping it would boost his legitimacy. By voting out the incumbent New Democrats so determinedly, analysts said, Greeks had shown how "fed up" they were with the abuse of power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/05/pasok-wins-snap-greek-poll

You can not blame ordinary citizens for the actions of elected officials when those in power along with their cohorts in the realm of finance conspire to doctor the balance sheets. Big business corrupts politicians. You want to correct a problem, you go to the source!

djpbarry · 15-11-2011 10:42AM

cyberhog wrote: »

In 2009 the Greeks voted out the party responsible for steering the country right into the debt crisis. We did the same in Ireland.

So prior to the last general election in Ireland, nobody suspected that something wasn’t quite right about Fianna Fáil?

cyberhog wrote: »

You can not blame ordinary citizens for the actions of elected officials...

When “ordinary citizens” knowingly elect crooked candidates then yes you most certainly can.

View · 15-11-2011 02:09PM

cyberhog wrote: »

The cabinet had given Papandreou it's unanimous support.

Again, it takes more than the support of a cabinet (or a Prime Minister) to get a referendum bill through a parliament. You are making the assumption that the parliament was supportive of the idea whereas the initial Greek reaction seemed to be that this was very much a solo run by Papandreou (as even his Finance Minister seemed in the dark about it).

In addition, you should be aware that usually when politicians express "unanimous support" for someone or something, that the political undertakers are busy digging the political grave to bury the person or idea...

cyberhog wrote: »

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

You seem to be a bit confused about what constitutes "interference in domestic affairs". Providing a loan to a member state (e.g. Ireland or Greece) when the financial markets won't, IS interference in domestic affairs since it means the government of the member state can continue to pay for government services that it wouldn't be able to without the loan. In other words, the government and electorate don't have to fully confront the full extent of the financial mess they are in. Deciding not to provide loans in such a scenario is stopping interfering in domestic affairs and leaves the citizens and government of the member state free to face up to reality.

cyberhog · 16-11-2011 06:18AM

View wrote: »

You are making the assumption that the parliament was supportive of the idea...

No this is just you assuming you know what I'm thinking because you can't rebut my points without the help of your friend the straw man.

Let's re-quote what you wrote shall we?

View wrote: »

(even his own Finance Minister seemed completely opposed to the idea).

You're making an assumption, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.As I stated earlier, the cabinet had given Papandreou it's unanimous support. It was only after the "shock and awe" meeting with the EU overlords in Cannes that the Finance Minister withdrew his support for the referendum.

View wrote: »

You seem to be a bit confused about what constitutes "interference in domestic affairs". Providing a loan to a member state (e.g. Ireland or Greece) when the financial markets won't, IS interference in domestic affairs since it means the government of the member state can continue to pay for government services that it wouldn't be able to without the loan. In other words, the government and electorate don't have to fully confront the full extent of the financial mess they are in. Deciding not to provide loans in such a scenario is stopping interfering in domestic affairs and leaves the citizens and government of the member state free to face up to reality.

Not at all, and thankfully not everyone in this debate is as disingenuous as you.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Clearly Dr Merkel is saying that the moneys can be released if the Greeks vote yes,

A German telling the Greeks that payment due to them would be withheld unless they vote YES is a clear case of interference in domestic affairs.

It was clear that Papandreou did not take kindly to being given ultimatums.

"We will not implement any program by force, but only with the consent of the Greek people," he said. "This is our democratic tradition and we demand that it is also respected abroad."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9QO8QG81.htm

K-9 · 16-11-2011 07:48AM

cyberhog wrote: »

A German telling the Greeks that payment due to them would be withheld unless they vote YES is a clear case of interference in domestic affairs.

Why would they handover money that the Greek people may reject in a referendum?

If they did hand it over, you'd probably say the vote was being bought!

I don't see how you aren't getting that at this stage, I can only think you purposefully aren't getting it.

View · 16-11-2011 03:39PM

cyberhog wrote: »

No this is just you assuming you know what I'm thinking because you can't rebut my points without the help of your friend the straw man.

Given that your argument relies on a straw man, that is quite amusing.

cyberhog wrote: »

Let's re-quote what you wrote shall we?

I based that comment on a report in the FT before the Cannes Summit where a Greek government spokesman was quoted as saying:

Venizelos had no idea about the referendum. All he knew about was the vote of confidence.

That doesn't sound like enthusiastic support for a referendum, does it? And politicians do tend to fall over themselves to claim credit for "good ideas" wherever possible.

cyberhog wrote: »

You're making an assumption, while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.As I stated earlier, the cabinet had given Papandreou it's unanimous support.

Again, you ignore the point - referenda aren't held because a Prime Minister says they will be nor because a cabinet says they will be, they are held, if and when, a majority of a Parliament approves the holding of them.

So, can you point to where the Greek Parliament approved the holding of a referendum? And, subsequently, reversed that decision?

Show us the evidence...

cyberhog wrote: »

Not at all, and thankfully not everyone in this debate is as disingenuous as you.

I am the one recognising that providing a loan to a member state when the financial markets won't, IS interference in domestic affairs since it means the government of the member state can continue to pay for government services that it wouldn't be able to without the loan.

If you want to be disingenuous enough to try and maintain that such a loan has no effect on the domestic affairs of a member state then by all means do so.

cyberhog · 17-11-2011 07:03AM

View wrote: »

Given that your argument relies on a straw man, that is quite amusing.

There is no straw man in what I posted. You claimed the Finance Minister was "completely opposed" to the idea , I provided evidence that contradicted your claim. i.e. ( the cabinet had given Papandreou it's unanimous support) I didn't ignore, distort, or misrepresent your position. You, on the other hand, have made a very transparent attempt to use a straw man to draw attention from the only point in question.

View wrote: »

it takes more than the support of a cabinet (or a Prime Minister) to get a referendum bill through a parliament.

While that statement is true it is no way relevant to the point in question, which is, your claim that the Finance Minister was "completely opposed" to the idea of a referendum.

Not content with moving the goalposts, you then go on to compound your dishonesty by trying to misrepresent my position.

View wrote: »

You are making the assumption that the parliament was supportive of the idea

Repeating your straw man argument over and over will not render it relevant. It merely indicates that you have limitations to both your intellect and your honesty.

View wrote: »

I based that comment on a report in the FT before the Cannes Summit where a Greek government spokesman was quoted as saying.

Well you really need to be more discerning about the information produced by news outlets. Your quote only suggests that Venizelos "had no idea about the referendum" it does NOT support your assumption that he was "completely opposed" to the idea. You also neglected to mention that the source spoke "on condition of anonymity"

"Venizelos had no idea about the referendum. All he knew about was the vote of confidence," a government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/9924148

So all you have is hearsay from an unnamed source that clearly doesn't support your clumsy assumptions.

View wrote: »

I am the one recognising that providing a loan to a member state when the financial markets won't, IS interference in domestic affairs
.

Here again you are making a statement that while true it is no way relevant to the point in question. i.e. ( Dr Merkel's comments on the proposed referendum) What you are deliberately attempting to distract readers from is the fact that it is for the people and the people alone to determine the outcome of a referendum and they must be able to make their choice free from coercion and intimidation.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2011 09:56AM

cyberhog wrote: »

What you are deliberately attempting to distract readers from is the fact that it is for the people and the people alone to determine the outcome of a referendum and they must be able to make their choice free from coercion and intimidation.

So let's revisit my earlier question: if the people of Austria were to decide in a referendum that all the country's toxic waste would be dumped into the Danube downriver from Vienna, you don't believe that the governments of Hungary, Slovakia et al should be allowed to express a view for fear of "coercion" or "intimidation" of the Austrian people?

djpbarry · 17-11-2011 02:54PM

cyberhog wrote: »

While that statement is true it is no way relevant to the point in question, which is, your claim that the Finance Minister was "completely opposed" to the idea of a referendum.
...
Repeating your straw man argument over and over will not render it relevant.

Eh, wasn’t your whole argument that Merkel et al. had stepped in and prevented a Greek referendum? Isn’t the fact that the referendum wasn’t even of approved by the Greek parliament kind of important?

Sponge Bob · 17-11-2011 04:16PM

Pity they don't have the referendum and feck off. I don't want to share a currency with the greeks and thats that. They have no redeeming features that would make me consider them a developed democratic country.

cyberhog · 18-11-2011 05:02AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Isn’t the fact that the referendum wasn’t even of approved by the Greek parliament kind of important?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's clearly impossible for the Parliament to approve a referendum when the idea was shelved before MP's had a chance to vote for its implementation.

If you are to comment, get the basic facts straight before you post or no one will take you seriously.

K-9 · 18-11-2011 06:46AM

cyberhog wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

It's clearly impossible for the Parliament to approve a referendum when the idea was shelved before MP's had a chance to vote for its implementation.

If you are to comment, get the basic facts straight before you post or no one will take you seriously.

Yet somehow the EU not giving over the bailout funds that hadn't even been accepted by the Greek people is some type of abomination against democracy!

At least be consistent on facts.

cyberhog · 18-11-2011 09:12AM

K-9 wrote: »

Yet somehow the EU not giving over the bailout funds that hadn't even been accepted by the Greek people is some type of abomination against democracy!

Oh look another disingenuous poster enters the fray.

There is no "somehow" about it. It was the people's democratic right to have a say on the bailout. It is clear the EU overlords did not share that sentiment and coerced the Greeks into abandoning the referendum. Any honest observer would say the action the EU overlords took to crush the opportunity for the people to have their say was most definitely an "abomination against democracy".

Greeks having a referendum on bailout

Comments