Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on June 30, 2016, 12:50:07 am
-
As per this article! (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/brexit-great-news-eu-britain-sovereignty)
Essentially, the argument boils down to that the UK has been veto'ing any major change to how the EU works for years, as well as trying to opt out of any burdens whilst recieving the blessings. With the UK now gone, the EU can finally try to implement it's plans to become more democratic and can try to break the control the corperate lobby has.
-
He calls the british delusional but he should look at the mirror instead.
-
He calls the british delusional but he should look at the mirror instead.
So smart, such insight, much wow. Have you seen Nigel Farage's speech or Johnson's speeches thus far? I really don't see how anyone could walk away with any impression other then 'delusional'.
-
The thrust of the Article is that the EU could enact more sweeping reforms when the UK isn't around to block things anymore. But that's just as delusional a stance as Brexit's "The EU is constantly acting against our best interests" thing was; The UK delegation to the EU (both as part of the EP and the Commission) isn't significantly more obstructionist than any other (in fact, analysis shows that the UK was more often than not on the winning side of policy debates; in recent years, even with all the EU skepticism Cameron has been promoting, Germany was actually on the losing side of things more often than the UK).
A second argument is made in the article here:
Had remain won the referendum, the EU would have become hostage to British sabotage. Future British prime ministers would veto any fundamental change involving the transfer of sovereignty, arguing, correctly, that their people had voted only for the current set-up of the EU. Britain would continue to demand ever more opt-outs and concessions – playing to the fantasy that membership is a British favour to the rest of Europe. The British press and Europhobe politicians would go on portraying the EU in the most lurid, mendacious and derisory terms, making us look terrible in the eyes of Americans and English-speaking Asians, Africans and Russians.
Except that's not how it works. It assumes a continuation of the status quo, something that hopefully does not happen. It also assumes that the rest of the EU would allow Britain to be that obstructionist; as we've seen in the past few days, there is little hesitation among the rest of the EU governments to play hardball against the UK.
-
Thank you for saying what my lazyness obstructed me into saying The_E. That's basically my point as well. As with all these silly "paradise is just ahead of us" delusional thesis, brexiteers are as faulty as these "we're better without you thanks" ****ty articles, which are very rethorical and of little actual justified substance.
And no, just because I disagree with X, doesn't mean I'm therefore with "Anti-X", which has been your constant misrepresentation Joshua (if you're not for this ideology, you must be anti-demographic X, if you're not for this remainer, you must be a brexiter, etc.). Pisses me off to no end.
-
The idea that the EU is better off now that its second-largest economy is the first to leave it is just as delusional as the idea that Britain is better off for having severed and told to **** off most of its biggest trade partners at once.
-
The only positive I could carve out of this would be if this crisis began an introspective analysis within eurocrats into making Europe way more demos - oriented, and a lot more beneficial to actual europeans, solving actual problems like Greece, etc.
But that's not gonna happen. If the people there didn't do it so far, sure as hell they can't wrap their heads into the need to do this now. Schauble has already goofed against Portugal yesterday, implying we would need a new bailout. As if that statement that was later retracted wouldn't be, at some level, a self-fulfilling prophecy (by talking about it, you're bringing it into reality). This after a successful good budget execution by our government. And after Brexit. These are the kind of morons who are leading europe into an abyss.
-
Have you read this resolution here (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0294+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN)?
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
1. Takes note of the wish of the citizens of the United Kingdom to leave the EU; points out that the will expressed by the people must be entirely and fully respected, starting with the activation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as soon as possible;
2. Stresses that this is a critical moment for the EU: the interests and expectations of the Union’s citizens must be brought back to the centre of the debate; the European project must be relaunched now;
3. Stresses that the will of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom should be respected via a swift and coherent implementation of the withdrawal procedure;
4. Points out that negotiations under Article 50 TEU concerning the UK’s withdrawal from the EU must begin as soon as formal notification has been communicated;
5. Warns that in order to prevent damaging uncertainty for everyone and to protect the Union’s integrity, the notification stipulated in Article 50 TEU must take place as soon as possible; expects the UK Prime Minister to notify the outcome of the referendum to the European Council of 28-29 June 2016; this notification will launch the withdrawal procedure;
6. Recalls that the settlement agreed by the heads of state or government in February 2016 stipulated that it would only enter into force if the UK decided to stay in the EU; it is therefore null and void;
7. Recalls that any new relationship between the UK and the EU may not be agreed before the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement;
8. Recalls that the consent of the European Parliament is required under the Treaties, and that it must be fully involved at all stages of the various procedures concerning the withdrawal agreement and any future relationship;
9. Invites the Council to appoint the Commission as negotiator on Article 50 TEU;
10. Stresses that the current challenges require reflection on the future of the EU: there is a need to reform the Union and make it better and more democratic; notes that while some Member States may choose to integrate more slowly or to a lesser extent, the core of the EU must be reinforced and à la carte solutions should be avoided; considers that the need to promote our common values, provide stability, social justice, sustainability, growth and jobs, overcome persistent economic and social uncertainty, protect citizens and address the challenge of migration requires developing and democratising, in particular, the Economic and Monetary Union and the area of freedom, security and justice, as well as strengthening the common foreign and security policy; considers therefore that the reforms must result in a Union which delivers what citizens expect;
11. Calls for a roadmap for a better Union based on exploiting the Lisbon Treaty to the full, to be completed by a revision of the Treaties;
12. Will enact changes in its internal organisation to reflect the will of a majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union;
13. Takes note of the UK Commissioner’s resignation and the relocation of his portfolio;
14. Calls on the Council to change the order of its Presidencies to prevent the process of withdrawal from jeopardising the management of the day-to-day business of the Union;
15. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the national parliaments and the Government of the UK.
Seems to me that at least some of the EUP delegates recognize the need for change.
-
Vytenis Andriukaitis had some thoughts on that whole thing (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/eu-health-commissioner-explains-farage-facepalm-vytenis-andriukaitis). I found it very interesting and actually a bit uplifting to read. That's the general feel I am getting here: That Britain's exit is a catalyst for something a bit more positive. Atleast for the countries still within the EU sans Ireland.
(Whilst the british politicians continue to fill me with apathy everytime I hear news coming from that region 0_o)
-
Except the UK hasn't exited yet. With Boris Johnson abandoning his bid for Prime Minister, it's unclear right now who will take over and what his or her stance on invoking Article 50 will be. There's noone in the Brexit camp (except maybe Farage) who seems willing to actually step up and take responsibility for guiding the UK through this process (because, it has to be said, they didn't bother to plan for that eventuality).
We've already seen the markets stabilize because everyone has realized that nothing is actually going to be done until Cameron's exit from office (Which I think is still a few weeks away). But I would be hesitant to call that a recovery; it's very definitely a metastable situation at best.
-
All I see in that resolution is just pure Eurocrat trash again. In what appears as something "positive" (hey, weren't they supposed to be anti-democratic? but here they are so appeasing the UK voters! They are actually more democratic than Boris or David!!), it's actually just typical eurotrash: they are merely being dicks to the UK by pressuring them to start negotiations as fast as possible for they have *seen* that the UK Leavers are not ready for these things altogether. Moreover, UK Tory politicians have all agreed with Cameron that an intra election within the Tory party should get them a new prime minister before any negotiations should unfold. This all makes sense: if Cameron is to resign, a new PM should be in the reigns of a new deal with Europe. The new PM should never inherit negotiations at the middle of them, but rather should initiate them.
However, ever since Cameron stated he was to resign, Europe started making this passive aggressive maneuver pretending they are oh so democratic now, but instead, as I said, being merely dicks.
No, ****heads, the UK will take its time and will enact article 50 when they want and how they want, not how *you* want it.
BTW, this is entirely my analysis alone, I haven't seen anyone commenting on this in the same veins that I have, although there's probably a lot who think likewise.
-
Meh, I kinda get the sense that the EP is reacting more to the brits being dicks within and without the EP (have you seen or heard Farage's rant in there?) then themselves being dicks. "You've made your bed, now lie in it" seems to be the response, which I do not consider 'being a dick'.
Then again, with Boris Johnson withdrawing from the conservative party it seems like the leavers don't actually want to lie in that bed (with the possible exception of Farage). One of the more interesting analysises I saw thus far is that the leavers never actually counted on winning the referendum but rather wanted to use the anger of disgruntled leave voters for their own political advantage. If that is the case, this has backfired spectacurarely. Honestly, I can't blame the various EP members to react badly to that. Because that's the definition of a dick move.
-
What the EU is doing is dragging themselves down to Farage's level. Here's the difference between Farage and the Eurocrats: Farage is an asshole when he opens his mouth, the eurocrats are assholes when they do things. I'd say the latter is way more harmful than the former, but both are assholeish. The EU has no say about this issue and yet all pretend they do. They don't. Shut your pieholes, Juncker et co. Merkel has been a lot better in this, albeit she would also do 100 times better if she just stayed quiet and merely issued what the german position is regarding a brexit and the timing.
-
The uncertainty over Brexit isn't doing European stock markets any good. And this is occurring over a matter which they had no power over. Boris Johnson has stated he wants to drag things out until 2020! Surely you can at least understand their desire to get the UK out as fast as possible so that they can return to some semblance of normality?
Yeah I agree that the Conservatives need to pick a new leader before negotiations start, but once they have a new leader I can't blame the rest of Europe for wanting them to start immediately.
-
After Cameron has stated his decision and given the reasonability of having a new PM conduct the negotiations it's absolutely below any semblance of decency for the EU to pretend cluelessness and just demand they just push the button already. We all know, or *should* know, the political situation right now in the UK and understand the reasonableness of Cameron's decision. I think the EU has reason to demand relative rush for this process, but they are speaking in terms of days or weeks. That's absolutely untenable and reminds me of the Greece days of doom back a year ago, when they smothered the Greek politicians every single day with this kind of "rushed" limbo. So, I guess it's par for the course for these assholes.
I also think that Boris is an idiot who has probably "buyer's remorse" as I've seen defined elsewhere in the internets. 2020? I totally agree that that's just insane gibberish. He should also go **** himself. I hope the Tory party chooses someone with the inclination to start negotiations as soon as possible, like Theresa May. Gove has already stabbed Boris in the back, so those two should also go to hell.
-
luis you would maybe do better in these threads if you didn't interpret everything as a personal slight
-
I live in Europe so I'm so sorry (not) if I take this **** personally. I do for it's impacting me directly. And I could tell you the innumerous ways how, but since this thread is not about me, I won't, okthnksbye.
-
After Cameron has stated his decision and given the reasonability of having a new PM conduct the negotiations it's absolutely below any semblance of decency for the EU to pretend cluelessness and just demand they just push the button already. We all know, or *should* know, the political situation right now in the UK and understand the reasonableness of Cameron's decision. I think the EU has reason to demand relative rush for this process, but they are speaking in terms of days or weeks. That's absolutely untenable and reminds me of the Greece days of doom back a year ago, when they smothered the Greek politicians every single day with this kind of "rushed" limbo. So, I guess it's par for the course for these assholes.
When haggling you always start out with something completely unreasonable and meet in the middle. If the Europeans actually tried to sound reasonable it probably would end up being 2020 because whoever ends up in charge of the party probably has realised that the longer they wait the better.
-
Given how Greece's issues are still unresolved in the most irresponsible manner, I contest your idea that their procedure is designed to "meet in the middle". Not so. They start being ridiculous with the sole intent to being ridiculous. All in all, all european claptrap is about the French and German clashing with each other in brinksmanship's political shenanigans. Juncker, for all his sins, is merely a puppet. A ****ing moronic one, but still, just a puppet.
-
Given how Greece's issues are still unresolved in the most irresponsible manner, I contest your idea that their procedure is designed to "meet in the middle".
You say this as though Greece has had nothing to contribute to its own problems, which is...at the very least incorrect. Trying to meet them in the middle failed over their own extremism (until their position was too untenable to do anything but beg on their knees and the fact they get screwed in that situation should not surprise anyone), much like trying to meet the UK in the middle would probably fail if Nigel Farange was PM.
-
(http://i66.tinypic.com/30u2s90.png)
>>Let's try this again :P
-
On a side topic, we'll probably never know exactly what happened to Boris Johnson's bid to become prime minister (well at least until people start writing memoires) but it's interesting to speculate. (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36679738)
Well that is if you aren't too busy laughing about the delicious irony that it is possible that both Johnson and Gove both wanted to stay in Europe and only joined the Leave campaign in order to have a better chance at a leadership run when Leave lost. Then leave won, Gove backstabbed Boris and now most likely neither will likely get the job (as Teresa May is the one who came out of the whole affair smelling of roses). :lol:
-
On a side topic, we'll probably never know exactly what happened to Boris Johnson's bid to become prime minister (well at least until people start writing memoires) but it's interesting to speculate.
On a meta level, I very much intended this to be a freshened up reboot of the brexit thread so I'd say it's not a side topic at all :)
But I honestly wasn't expecting the Brexit camp to crash so hard. I've seen populists fall like Icaruses before but still.
-
Here is a handy summary of the situation that should clear everything right up:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmIHbyJWAAA5cfB.jpg)
-
Given how Greece's issues are still unresolved in the most irresponsible manner, I contest your idea that their procedure is designed to "meet in the middle".
You say this as though Greece has had nothing to contribute to its own problems, which is...at the very least incorrect. Trying to meet them in the middle failed over their own extremism (until their position was too untenable to do anything but beg on their knees and the fact they get screwed in that situation should not surprise anyone), much like trying to meet the UK in the middle would probably fail if Nigel Farange was PM.
Utter bollocks. The talks in 2015 were anything but rational. Greece was found cooking their books and got itself thrown into a depression unlike any seen so far in history by a completely incompetent troika. This blaming **** on the greeks is for gullible people. The matter of the fact is that the Greeks paid their crimes 100 times what they deserved, and the Troika, knowing full well that their medicine was not working, decided to continue to "give it" to the Greeks because of politics, not economic realities. That you still fall for this rethoric is proof enough that humanity is still quite irrational.
I could give you numbers, but I have been doing this for years and I still get these ridiculous answers back so what's the point? If people want to delude themselves into thinking it must be the Greek's fault and not the Eurocrats' fault, then what some conservatives say is all but true in humankind: people want to be lied to. They crave for it.
-
Given how Greece's issues are still unresolved in the most irresponsible manner, I contest your idea that their procedure is designed to "meet in the middle".
You say this as though Greece has had nothing to contribute to its own problems, which is...at the very least incorrect. Trying to meet them in the middle failed over their own extremism (until their position was too untenable to do anything but beg on their knees and the fact they get screwed in that situation should not surprise anyone), much like trying to meet the UK in the middle would probably fail if Nigel Farange was PM.
Utter bollocks. The talks in 2015 were anything but rational. Greece was found cooking their books and got itself thrown into a depression unlike any seen so far in history by a completely incompetent troika. This blaming **** on the greeks is for gullible people. The matter of the fact is that the Greeks paid their crimes 100 times what they deserved, and the Troika, knowing full well that their medicine was not working, decided to continue to "give it" to the Greeks because of politics, not economic realities. That you still fall for this rethoric is proof enough that humanity is still quite irrational.
I could give you numbers, but I have been doing this for years and I still get these ridiculous answers back so what's the point? If people want to delude themselves into thinking it must be the Greek's fault and not the Eurocrats' fault, then what some conservatives say is all but true in humankind: people want to be lied to. They crave for it.
Greece for decades had ridiculous public spending (I mean, a pension for the unmarried daughters of state workers?) and a lot of tax evasion, my country was in the same situation between the 80s and the 90s and let's just say getting out of it was as much if not more painful as most of our politicians raised taxes and devalued money instead of cutting spending or forcing tax evaders to pay, we got away with it only because the world economy at the time was in good shape but it came back biting s in the arse years later when Berlusconi preferred to go home rather than make unpopular but necessary decisions (which was useless anyway because he then got condemned as was finally interdicted from politics), today the world economy isn't in a healthy enough state so Greece cannot go away with it and that's pretty much it.
-
Yeah talk to me when your country is forced to depress itself 30% of its own GDP and still come up with a budget surplus, despite having to give unemployment benefits to 25% people, 60% amongst the young. Yeah, blame "socialist policies". LOL.
so Greece cannot go away with it and that's pretty much it.
You have absolutely zero idea of what was and still is going on, if we are to go by your words here.
-
From my perspective in Germany, Greece got absolutely massacred. Never mind what the actual problems are that the country has, when the largest media outlets in Germany decide that you're an acceptable target for derision, you're toast. That's not meant to absolve Merkel and Schäuble et al from their responsibility for this mess, but it is my firm belief that the situation in Greece would never have escalated as much as it did if the german media as well as our own euroskeptics hadn't decided that the greek are all a bunch of wasteful corrupt good-for-nothings.
-
Yeah talk to me when your country is forced to depress itself 30% of its own GDP and still come up with a budget surplus, despite having to give unemployment benefits to 25% people, 60% amongst the young. Yeah, blame "socialist policies". LOL.
so Greece cannot go away with it and that's pretty much it.
You have absolutely zero idea of what was and still is going on, if we are to go by your words here.
Those aren't "socialist" policies, they are the state giving money around to keep the electorate happy, I'm not exactly a "libertarian" but Greece was essentially living on borrowed money which is fine until a crisis hits and the creditors knock at the door.
Italy has been largely in the same situation, only since **** hit the fan already in the 90s we were in a less dangerous position when the crisis hit us in 2008 but even then they had to put a few patsies like Monti to do the dirty job and find someone to blame for the unpopular decisions that had to be made.
And no, I'm not blaming socialist policies, I blame the people who try to exploit them as much as they can, Italy didn't have many deterrents in that regard before the 90s and Greece had much of the same problem until recently, and guess what when that happens deficit becomes a problem.
-
From my perspective in Germany, Greece got absolutely massacred. Never mind what the actual problems are that the country has, when the largest media outlets in Germany decide that you're an acceptable target for derision, you're toast. That's not meant to absolve Merkel and Schäuble et al from their responsibility for this mess, but it is my firm belief that the situation in Greece would never have escalated as much as it did if the german media as well as our own euroskeptics hadn't decided that the greek are all a bunch of wasteful corrupt good-for-nothings.
This is touching in a very special problem: eurocrats and their fans cannot be annoyed at the level of xenophobia and general inter-european racism that was seen in the whole #Brexit brouhaha when they have been a central source of this problem in the fist place regarding what they called the "PIIGS" countries and, the worst of the worst "kind" of people, with an "atrocious anti-tax culture" that are the Greeks. I still see this pigeonholing today. I still see this scapegoating today. The reason why most people do it is that it is far easier and comforting to believe in this nonsense (and thus, **** those lazy greeks amirite) than to realise the real truth: that the institutions in power were deliberately incompetent and malicious to millions of people who are now starving, with schools reporting starvation in their children at alarming rates.
This truth just seems unbelievable. And so people willfully choose to not believe it, as this thread clearly demonstrates. And yet, it's the bare truth. Why was this possible? Well, for one, the very architecture of the Euro makes it almost inevitable, especially when you have a country that has in all effects been bankrupted but was forbidden to either default or to restructure its unpayable debts. As Schauble stated in the eurogroup in 2015, elections cannot be allowed to change the economic policies applied to Greece. So irrationality remained merely for political reasons. And if no one in Europe cares about the Greeks, because **** those lazy greeks amirite, then nothing will change.
Even when other countries were dragged into the mud, this racist meme continued and is still strong, even amongst otherwise "leftists", which still amazes me to no end.
Until I remember that I'm a mysanthrope at heart, and so everything checks out. Again.
Those aren't "socialist" policies, they are the state giving money around to keep the electorate happy, I'm not exactly a "libertarian" but Greece was essentially living on borrowed money which is fine until a crisis hits and the creditors knock at the door.
Wrong. They borrowed money because it was quite cheap to do so. Private institutions did the same for the exact same reason. They may have behaved "populistically" but they were always being rational. The rates only shot up when Merkel reminded Europe of the Maastricht treaty that there would be no european pool of risk between national banks. Something that was to the letter, but everything against its spirit. The reason why the treaty was written this way was because it was as far as they could have risked it at the 90s. They were with the firm belief, however, that if a crisis came to be, germans and french would come together and change these laws. Alas, they didn't because Merkel saw the risk would rise in the periphery but would lower in the center, which meant a capital flight towards Berlin.
IOW, Merkel played with "Europe" and basically won two major things: A currency which was amazingly cheap for Germans (thus giving them an amazing advantage) and all the capital that fled from the periphery. With all of this new found wealth, she then berated the peripherical economies for not being as successful as Germany. You probably can guess where I thought she could stick her success.
Italy has been largely in the same situation, only since **** hit the fan already in the 90s we were in a less dangerous position when the crisis hit us in 2008 but even then they had to put a few patsies like Monti to do the dirty job and find someone to blame for the unpopular decisions that had to be made.
Not to say that "unpopular" decisions had to be made, but bear in mind that all of this crisis was mostly manufactured so that Berlin could dictate to many countries what kinds of reforms they should enact in their own countries. Bear in mind also that much of this was completely ideological, not "pragmatic" nor "rational".
And no, I'm not blaming socialist policies, I blame the people who try to exploit them as much as they can, Italy didn't have many deterrents in that regard before the 90s and Greece had much of the same problem until recently, and guess what when that happens deficit becomes a problem.
Not much really. Unless you cannot devalue your currency and you don't have any say with the central banks of the currency. The worst that could happen pre-euro was a devaluation, that was always harmful, but in terms of quantity, it's probably one or two orders of magnitude less of pain. In terms of inequality, it was waaaay better. I could go on exactly why, but it's the ****ing internet, go educate yourself already.
-
From my perspective in Germany, Greece got absolutely massacred. Never mind what the actual problems are that the country has, when the largest media outlets in Germany decide that you're an acceptable target for derision, you're toast. That's not meant to absolve Merkel and Schäuble et al from their responsibility for this mess, but it is my firm belief that the situation in Greece would never have escalated as much as it did if the german media as well as our own euroskeptics hadn't decided that the greek are all a bunch of wasteful corrupt good-for-nothings.
This is touching in a very special problem: eurocrats and their fans cannot be annoyed at the level of xenophobia and general inter-european racism that was seen in the whole #Brexit brouhaha when they have been a central source of this problem in the fist place regarding what they called the "PIIGS" countries and, the worst of the worst "kind" of people, with an "atrocious anti-tax culture" that are the Greeks. I still see this pigeonholing today. I still see this scapegoating today. The reason why most people do it is that it is far easier and comforting to believe in this nonsense (and thus, **** those lazy greeks amirite) than to realise the real truth: that the institutions in power were deliberately incompetent and malicious to millions of people who are now starving, with schools reporting starvation in their children at alarming rates.
This truth just seems unbelievable. And so people willfully choose to not believe it, as this thread clearly demonstrates. And yet, it's the bare truth. Why was this possible? Well, for one, the very architecture of the Euro makes it almost inevitable, especially when you have a country that has in all effects been bankrupted but was forbidden to either default or to restructure its unpayable debts. As Schauble stated in the eurogroup in 2015, elections cannot be allowed to change the economic policies applied to Greece. So irrationality remained merely for political reasons. And if no one in Europe cares about the Greeks, because **** those lazy greeks amirite, then nothing will change.
Even when other countries were dragged into the mud, this racist meme continued and is still strong, even amongst otherwise "leftists", which still amazes me to no end.
Until I remember that I'm a mysanthrope at heart, and so everything checks out. Again.
Those aren't "socialist" policies, they are the state giving money around to keep the electorate happy, I'm not exactly a "libertarian" but Greece was essentially living on borrowed money which is fine until a crisis hits and the creditors knock at the door.
Wrong. They borrowed money because it was quite cheap to do so. Private institutions did the same for the exact same reason. They may have behaved "populistically" but they were always being rational. The rates only shot up when Merkel reminded Europe of the Maastricht treaty that there would be no european pool of risk between national banks. Something that was to the letter, but everything against its spirit. The reason why the treaty was written this way was because it was as far as they could have risked it at the 90s. They were with the firm belief, however, that if a crisis came to be, germans and french would come together and change these laws. Alas, they didn't because Merkel saw the risk would rise in the periphery but would lower in the center, which meant a capital flight towards Berlin.
IOW, Merkel played with "Europe" and basically won two major things: A currency which was amazingly cheap for Germans (thus giving them an amazing advantage) and all the capital that fled from the periphery. With all of this new found wealth, she then berated the peripherical economies for not being as successful as Germany. You probably can guess where I thought she could stick her success.
Italy has been largely in the same situation, only since **** hit the fan already in the 90s we were in a less dangerous position when the crisis hit us in 2008 but even then they had to put a few patsies like Monti to do the dirty job and find someone to blame for the unpopular decisions that had to be made.
Not to say that "unpopular" decisions had to be made, but bear in mind that all of this crisis was mostly manufactured so that Berlin could dictate to many countries what kinds of reforms they should enact in their own countries. Bear in mind also that much of this was completely ideological, not "pragmatic" nor "rational".
And no, I'm not blaming socialist policies, I blame the people who try to exploit them as much as they can, Italy didn't have many deterrents in that regard before the 90s and Greece had much of the same problem until recently, and guess what when that happens deficit becomes a problem.
Not much really. Unless you cannot devalue your currency and you don't have any say with the central banks of the currency. The worst that could happen pre-euro was a devaluation, that was always harmful, but in terms of quantity, it's probably one or two orders of magnitude less of pain. In terms of inequality, it was waaaay better. I could go on exactly why, but it's the ****ing internet, go educate yourself already.
I live in a country that devalued its money, believe me it's not exactly a bed of roses, it doesn't solve the problems it only hides them.
Also, I don't subscribe to "manifacturing" theories, never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained with stupidity and international economics are heavily infuenced by shortsighted or plain idiotic choices.
And I add that I educated myself enough by reading stuff, I don't really trust the internet to the point of using it to educate myself in economics, given that the field us so full of bull**** conspirationism even in unsuspecting places and nobody wants the blame for their troubles more than an entire nation.
-
I live in a country that devalued its money, believe me it's not exactly a bed of roses, it doesn't solve the problems it only hides them.
A weak Euro is very, very good for Germany. If we were to return to the Mark, it would get valued so high that our exports would tank immediately; Germany has a deeply vested interest in keeping the Euro cheap.
Also, I don't subscribe to "manifacturing" theories, never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained with stupidity and international economics are heavily infuenced by shortsighted or plain idiotic choices.
Again: Keeping the Euro cheap, and thus making german exports cheap, is good for Germany. Nothing shortsighted about it (unless you are one of those idealistic people who believes that we should be strong together and that Europe should be more than just something that ensures prosperity in its center).
-
I could give you numbers, but I have been doing this for years and I still get these ridiculous answers back so what's the point? If people want to delude themselves into thinking it must be the Greek's fault and not the Eurocrats' fault, then what some conservatives say is all but true in humankind: people want to be lied to. They crave for it.
They do. That's why they lie to themselves, isn't in Luis? After all, lying to yourself is a necessary part of maintaining a lie in a world where you are literally bombarded with information on any particular subject. The first two bailouts were poorly considered and poorly implemented; the EU wasn't trying to actually fix the problem, and the Greek government through failures in implementation weren't trying to get the most out of what they actually had. The third round and Tsipras' attempt to play poker with the Troika with a literally empty hand was the height of arrogance and the fact Greece suffered for it was entirely predictable.
Or I dunno man maybe just putting all the blame on the EU makes you feel better about it. Curse the EU! It's a big scary thing with no faces! That makes it easy to blame!
2010: Bailouts suck. Let's lie to avoid one by lying. This was a bad plan! Now we need a bailout.
2011: Poor bailout implementation prevents the full effect reaching people. Second bailout. Maybe if we put on enough bandaids it'll cover this arterial wound.
2012: Second bailout is implemented slowly, things continue getting worse.
2013: It got worse, the year.
2014: Things will get better! We'll be good! Nope actually they got worse. A new government is elected. They reject the bailout and attempt to play hardball, threatening to leave the EU.
2015: It turns out you can't play hardball without a bat, or a ball, or any arms. Lacking any cards to play the new government is unable to force a concession from its creditors. Attempting to get some cards to play via public referendum backfires (shades of the current situation). Greece is forced to accept ruinous terms because their government attempted to handle things like Donald Trump would have approved of.
-
I live in a country that devalued its money, believe me it's not exactly a bed of roses, it doesn't solve the problems it only hides them.
"It's not a bed of roses"
****ing hell, it's like talking to a wall. Perhaps you prefer a devaluation without devaluing the currency? Which basically means all the wages must go down and thus you have to synchronize every single job's wage downward perfectly to match what otherwise would be just a normal currency devaluation? Because that's what is deemed "Austerity", and it's amazingly worse than devaluation. You just showcase your ignorance on these matters. As the other would say, "ignorance is bliss". Be happy, remain ignorant.
Also, I don't subscribe to "manifacturing" theories, never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained with stupidity and international economics are heavily infuenced by shortsighted or plain idiotic choices.
I'm not ascribing pure evilness. The malice was intentional but wasn't directed at "Greece" per se: Greece is merely the sideshow. The real struggle is between Germany and France. But Greeks are the ones who suffer for this.
And I add that I educated myself enough by reading stuff, I don't really trust the internet to the point of using it to educate myself in economics, given that the field us so full of bull**** conspirationism even in unsuspecting places and nobody wants the blame for their troubles more than an entire nation.
Yeah? So why not read the actual people who were actually involved in the situations?
They do. That's why they lie to themselves, isn't in Luis? After all, lying to yourself is a necessary part of maintaining a lie in a world where you are literally bombarded with information on any particular subject. The first two bailouts were poorly considered and poorly implemented; the EU wasn't trying to actually fix the problem, and the Greek government through failures in implementation weren't trying to get the most out of what they actually had. The third round and Tsipras' attempt to play poker with the Troika with a literally empty hand was the height of arrogance and the fact Greece suffered for it was entirely predictable.
Tsipras was someone who didn't have the guts to challenge europe and risk Greece to go down the toilet. I don't blame him. I blame all those who put him in this situation. I blame the eurogroup.
Or I dunno man maybe just putting all the blame on the EU makes you feel better about it. Curse the EU! It's a big scary thing with no faces! That makes it easy to blame!
Quite the reverse. The eurogroup I very much wanted to believe. I very much want to believe that my country went through a Troika bailout and that everything they did had sense, for I paid for it like hell in my life. Facts just don't bear it out. A clear cut analysis just doesn't work. Fact: All the troika's prediction went LOL. All the pressupositions that justified the Troika's plans went absolutely haywire. Fact: they insisted on the same plans despite it being clear that the plans were not working at all as they predicted in every single case where they tried to implement them! Fact: Germany profited from all this shenanigan through currency and capital flight. Fact: Most PIIGS countries had less debt to GDP ratio than many other countries which had no problem whatsoever with their debts. Fact: The eurogroup threatened Varoufakis with a causus belli if he didn't sign the bailout. Fact: after 5 years of trying to implement austerity, Europe is still not growing economically.
I could go on for an eternity.
2010: Bailouts suck. Let's lie to avoid one by lying. This was a bad plan! Now we need a bailout.
2011: Poor bailout implementation prevents the full effect reaching people. Second bailout. Maybe if we put on enough bandaids it'll cover this arterial wound.
2012: Second bailout is implemented slowly, things continue getting worse.
2013: It got worse, the year.
2014: Things will get better! We'll be good! Nope actually they got worse. A new government is elected. They reject the bailout and attempt to play hardball, threatening to leave the EU.
2015: It turns out you can't play hardball without a bat, or a ball, or any arms. Lacking any cards to play the new government is unable to force a concession from its creditors. Attempting to get some cards to play via public referendum backfires (shades of the current situation). Greece is forced to accept ruinous terms because their government attempted to handle things like Donald Trump would have approved of.
False. They never threatened to leave the Euro, let alone the EU. Get your facts straight. And this idea that referendums are always bad and "populist" is quite the new meme amongst the leftists. Drop it. It ain't serious. The greek government was perfectly reasonable in letting the Greek public to vote on the paper that Europe ultimated Greece with. The reason: the greek government was only elected with 35%. They didn't feel they had sufficient authority to sign it. The Greeks voted 60+% to NOT sign it. Tsipras signed it anyway because of the threats he was getting from everyone else. Threats that completely bypassed what was normal and decent from many institutions (ECB, eurogroup, european commission, etc.).
-
Personally feel the greeks were treated too harshly, which is why I am happy to hear a few more social justice quips from various EPs.
I mean... This is a thing that happened. (http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/even-the-imf-thinks-greeces-bailout-deal-is-too-harsh--bJlogZtZlmg)
-
****ing hell, it's like talking to a wall.
It's the same for me, I'm utterly fed up with people convinced that the EU is some sort of Evil Empire commanded by people who eat children for breakfast.
-
False. They never threatened to leave the Euro, let alone the EU. Get your facts straight.
Going back to the drachma was not only on the table but it was an almost certain end result of rejecting the deal given a lack of other options in that situation, nor would have rejecting the deal and then having to go back to their own currency allowed them to gracefully remain in the EU. Everyone knew that rejection would be an almost inevitable cascade to the Greek exit. Brexit as a term owes its existence to the previous use of Grexit. I suppose, in a world of shadowy adherence to absolute statements only when they're convenient and talking about halo effects when they're convenient, you can make this kind of statement.
Don't expect the rest of us to join you.
(Also you weren't listening to the Finance Minister I guess?)
And this idea that referendums are always bad and "populist" is quite the new meme amongst the leftists.
You need to get your head out of your ass and stop interpreting the words of others through the lense of some kind of grand left-right struggle, and start thinking about them as the words of individual people with whom you've interacted long enough to know that they probably have some kind of nuance and meaning to them that is unique to that person rather than something that is convenient to your grand ideological cause.
In this case, the statement about taking it to the streets is that the streets are not predictable, and cannot be relied upon to back the government. Any attempt to take something to the populace has a risk of backfiring upon the government, regardless of the issue in question and the government's own leanings. The leader of the government in both cases pushed for a vote and campaigned for the losing alternative, leaving themselves high and dry at the end. (Indeed, even Leave has ended up in this boat now.) This has nothing to do with "populism", being "bad", or even "the leftists". You have attempted to cast an observation as old as time as a leftist meme: "Be careful what alternatives you present to another, because they will chose one, and it will not always be the one you desired."
Well okay then, I guess everything is leftist if it's convenient to you.
-
Welp, my take on the Grexit was caused by a tourist economy using a strong currency like the Euro. Nations like France, Germany, and even small places like Slovenia have diverse enough economies and investments to keep them chugging along.
Greece? Oh boy, aside from the dearth of idiocy from the various governmental parties... the Greek government likes to spend egregiously without the native institutions and industries to partly back it up- combined with a fundamentally 'soft' economy heavily reliant on tourism and outside funding. The Greek economy didn't have enough vectors to keep it growing internally, and the Euro was a potent, strong currency. Some people think I'm crazy, but I think many economies would benefit from having their own native currency as opposed to the Euro, or allow both to be used, despite the obvious increase in paperwork and bureaucratic wrangling.
What benefits Germany doesn't benefit Greece. What France wants, doesn't benefit Greece's different economic needs... so I guess I'm trying to say the Euro was a fundamental mismatch for a mainly tourist driven economy.
While Britain leaves the EU, I think it's economy is strong enough it can absorb the long term process of renegotiation with the continent - and fundamentally speaking, the Brexit is a big deal, but is not inherently a disaster like propaganda claims. I just find it funny that the blame game has taken on American proportions of mudslinging.
-
:bump:
Well, this was unexpected (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36702468). Reportedly, Farage has said that he "can now speak freely" and that "The real me will come out". I wonder what he means by that.
-
False. They never threatened to leave the Euro, let alone the EU. Get your facts straight.
Going back to the drachma was not only on the table but it was an almost certain end result of rejecting the deal given a lack of other options in that situation, nor would have rejecting the deal and then having to go back to their own currency allowed them to gracefully remain in the EU. Everyone knew that rejection would be an almost inevitable cascade to the Greek exit. Brexit as a term owes its existence to the previous use of Grexit. I suppose, in a world of shadowy adherence to absolute statements only when they're convenient and talking about halo effects when they're convenient, you can make this kind of statement.
Don't expect the rest of us to join you.
(Also you weren't listening to the Finance Minister I guess?)
May I pitch in as a Greek? While the wording of the referendum was something along the lines of 'Should the governemtn accept this deal?', it was made abundantly clear by both government representatives and experts that a rejection of the deal would result in a Grexit. Turns out, the government did not go for the exit after all, but it had been made clear that a Grexit would happen and Grexit had even been used as a threat by the Greeks during the negotiations.Even after the referendum, Varoufakis has been recorded drafting a government 'Plan B' for a Grexit (that would involve illegally hacking into tax databases, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion)
And this idea that referendums are always bad and "populist" is quite the new meme amongst the leftists.
You need to get your head out of your ass and stop interpreting the words of others through the lense of some kind of grand left-right struggle, and start thinking about them as the words of individual people with whom you've interacted long enough to know that they probably have some kind of nuance and meaning to them that is unique to that person rather than something that is convenient to your grand ideological cause.
In this case, the statement about taking it to the streets is that the streets are not predictable, and cannot be relied upon to back the government. Any attempt to take something to the populace has a risk of backfiring upon the government, regardless of the issue in question and the government's own leanings. The leader of the government in both cases pushed for a vote and campaigned for the losing alternative, leaving themselves high and dry at the end. (Indeed, even Leave has ended up in this boat now.) This has nothing to do with "populism", being "bad", or even "the leftists". You have attempted to cast an observation as old as time as a leftist meme: "Be careful what alternatives you present to another, because they will chose one, and it will not always be the one you desired."
Well okay then, I guess everything is leftist if it's convenient to you.
[/quote]
No argument regarding most of this argument, but it has to be pointed out that, in Greece's case, the government backed the winning option. It had been made clear that the government expected the people to vote 'no'. Even the wording was skewed: the options were 'Do you want us to take this deal? No/Yes' in that order .
It was only after they had won the referendum, that they proceeded to say that 'Brilliant! So you (the people) don't want us to take this deal! We'll now go negotiate another one!' and ended up with a deal that was several billion Euros worse. Because we had no basis on which to negotiate in the first place.
-
:bump:
Well, this was unexpected (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36702468). Reportedly, Farage has said that he "can now speak freely" and that "The real me will come out". I wonder what he means by that.
Curses, you beat me to it.
So, politically speaking for the moment:
-Cameron is toast.
-Johnson is toast.
-Farange is toast.
So the cynical leader of Remain who only called the vote to shore himself up is gone, and the main forces behind Leave decided that they've done enough damage and really didn't have a plan at all so they're jumping too. The rats all appear to be fleeing HMS Britannia before she sinks from the gaping hole they chewed in her belly.
FFS.
-
:bump:
Well, this was unexpected (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36702468). Reportedly, Farage has said that he "can now speak freely" and that "The real me will come out". I wonder what he means by that.
Curses, you beat me to it.
So, politically speaking for the moment:
-Cameron is toast.
-Johnson is toast.
-Farange is toast.
So the cynical leader of Remain who only called the vote to shore himself up is gone, and the main forces behind Leave decided that they've done enough damage and really didn't have a plan at all so they're jumping too. The rats all appear to be fleeing HMS Britannia before she sinks from the gaping hole they chewed in her belly.
FFS.
Corbin is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with his party to retain the leadership
-
Well, at least the Brexit notion that the UK would be in a favourable position negotiation wise is shattered now isn't it? I mean, why else would the EU ask Britain to get it the hell over with already whilst everyone who was supposed to have an idea on what the Brexit should look like bails out?
-
Not getting into the whole 'judging the European politics' versus 'stupidity of national politicians' bruhaha; as an archaeologist and historian I feel we're too involved in all of this (especially as a Greek and EU national) to be objective about those and I don't want to rant.
But even if you start from the premise that the UK had a favourable negotiating position originally, seeing everybody (including those prominent in the Leave campaign) going 'nope, not touching that with a ten foot-pole', certainly hurts that position.
That said, the EUs 'rush' to get the UK out ASAP and the UK stance of dragging their heels gives me flashbacks to the 'delay' policies employed by the Greeks a year or two back. It's interesting to compare the 'We'll be able to negotiate a good deal!' claims by the Leave campaign and the 'They'll be dancing to our tune!' line from the early days of the Tsipras administration. :doubt:
-
The Leave campaigners don't want to be involved with actually negotiating with the EU so that they can stand on the sidelines and blame someone else when it all goes tits up. It should be one of them in charge. And if none of them are willing, then we shouldn't allow them to get away with it and we just simply shouldn't leave the EU.
-
False. They never threatened to leave the Euro, let alone the EU. Get your facts straight.
Going back to the drachma was not only on the table but it was an almost certain end result of rejecting the deal given a lack of other options in that situation, nor would have rejecting the deal and then having to go back to their own currency allowed them to gracefully remain in the EU. Everyone knew that rejection would be an almost inevitable cascade to the Greek exit. Brexit as a term owes its existence to the previous use of Grexit. I suppose, in a world of shadowy adherence to absolute statements only when they're convenient and talking about halo effects when they're convenient, you can make this kind of statement.
Don't expect the rest of us to join you.
This is somewhat true and not at the same time. It is true that Grexit was in the air. It's certainly not true that this was a threat *by* the Greek government. On the other way around, it was Europe's threat to Greece. The reason why the Greeks couldn't make that decision was obvious: the return to the Drachma would take them months to set up, and if they announced on day 1 that Grexit was happening, now please wait a few months until we get our Drachmas printed, all the euros in the country would have fled, which would mean that all the troubles the Greeks went through were nothing compared to what it would happen to them. Schauble pointed that "perhaps" Greece could "go temporarily back to the Drachmas". He's either an idiot or a malevolent asshole. He's clearly not an idiot, so guess where I stand here.
What Varoufakis was planning was something risky but didn't entail Grexit from the Euro nor a return to Drachmas. It was something somewhat more complicated involving tax payment assurances and so on.
(Also you weren't listening to the Finance Minister I guess?)
I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who failed to listen to Varoufakis.
You need to get your head out of your ass and stop interpreting the words of others through the lense of some kind of grand left-right struggle, and start thinking about them as the words of individual people with whom you've interacted long enough to know that they probably have some kind of nuance and meaning to them that is unique to that person rather than something that is convenient to your grand ideological cause.
I'm guilty of this, absolutely. Sorry.
In this case, the statement about taking it to the streets is that the streets are not predictable, and cannot be relied upon to back the government. Any attempt to take something to the populace has a risk of backfiring upon the government, regardless of the issue in question and the government's own leanings. The leader of the government in both cases pushed for a vote and campaigned for the losing alternative, leaving themselves high and dry at the end. (Indeed, even Leave has ended up in this boat now.) This has nothing to do with "populism", being "bad", or even "the leftists". You have attempted to cast an observation as old as time as a leftist meme: "Be careful what alternatives you present to another, because they will chose one, and it will not always be the one you desired."
If the purpose of a referendum is for the populace to back the government's decisions, then is it really democratic or is it just a tool for dicatorial tendencies? It's not a true referendum if it can only exist when the chances of it going against the government's wishes are next to nil.
May I pitch in as a Greek? While the wording of the referendum was something along the lines of 'Should the governemtn accept this deal?', it was made abundantly clear by both government representatives and experts that a rejection of the deal would result in a Grexit. Turns out, the government did not go for the exit after all, but it had been made clear that a Grexit would happen and Grexit had even been used as a threat by the Greeks during the negotiations.Even after the referendum, Varoufakis has been recorded drafting a government 'Plan B' for a Grexit (that would involve illegally hacking into tax databases, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion)
"a threat by the greeks". This is a misreading of what happened. They *couldn't* make good on that threat, so they didn't really press on it. This was actually a threat by Schauble and other eurocrats, by the european media who was constantly speaking about "Grexit" as a way to scare off the Greeks into submission. The reason why people think that the Greeks actually made this threat was that Varoufakis famously didn't buckle with this threat with something like "If you want to do it, then do it". The real counter threat that the Greek government had against Grexit was that they could then simply wipe out 1 trillion euros from all the debts to european banks.
It was only after they had won the referendum, that they proceeded to say that 'Brilliant! So you (the people) don't want us to take this deal! We'll now go negotiate another one!' and ended up with a deal that was several billion Euros worse. Because we had no basis on which to negotiate in the first place.
This showcased the high stakes that were being dealt with. Tsipras simply didn't have the stomach to venture into the unknown of doing what the Greeks told them to do. Varoufakis resigned once Tsipras told him they would concede. I can't blame both, it could have well gone into the black hole of ****tiness. Europe as a whole was simply not caring about what happened to the Greeks, as long as the German banks were being paid. And if these morons aren't going to pay to the german banks, then I guess economically nuking their country may as well count as a merciful act. All in all, the whole episode was a farcical tale on how horrible European institutions and governments are behaving towards each other.
-
"a threat by the greeks". This is a misreading of what happened. They *couldn't* make good on that threat, so they didn't really press on it. This was actually a threat by Schauble and other eurocrats, by the european media who was constantly speaking about "Grexit" as a way to scare off the Greeks into submission. The reason why people think that the Greeks actually made this threat was that Varoufakis famously didn't buckle with this threat with something like "If you want to do it, then do it". The real counter threat that the Greek government had against Grexit was that they could then simply wipe out 1 trillion euros from all the debts to european banks.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you think the Greek government originally wanted Grexit and then changed their minds when the stakes went up? Or that they didn't want Grexit at all, ever and they used the trillion-euro-threat as a shield?
Because leaving the Eurozone does not absolve you of debt, which was meant to be paid in Euros anyway. No matter how the Greek Government handled the internal economy after a Grexit, they would still need to pay the debts in Euros, or default.
I can't blame both, it could have well gone into the black hole of ****tiness. Europe as a whole was simply not caring about what happened to the Greeks, as long as the German banks were being paid. And if these morons aren't going to pay to the german banks, then I guess economically nuking their country may as well count as a merciful act. All in all, the whole episode was a farcical tale on how horrible European institutions and governments are behaving towards each other.
I can.
Politics includes diplomacy and diplomacy includes forming a realistic view of the situation. Before deciding on policies and your diplomatic stance, you need to honestly assess your counterparts' stance, goals, capabilities and willingness to pursue them and decide accordingly.
If you're taking a vocal anti-European stance, organise a referendum in which there is a clear bias toward 'please reject this proposal' and then decide that escalating the situation is really not a good ida and decide to make a 180-degree turn and renegotiate a deal, you cannot expect the Europeans to give you a good deal. You are criminally incompetent / stupid / inexperienced for even considering it.
For better or worse, the European institutions have both the power and the interest to strong-arm those who would rock the boat. I agree that this is not ideal, but if you're forming a foreign / economic policy, you need to take this into account. It is a fact of EU politics. Either play their game, or draw up a realistic policy of how you can change that game, but don't go in expecting them to be 'decent' or to have your best interests in mind and then feel betrayed when they don't. And ffs, if you rock the boat be ready to end up in the drink.
TL;DR (and this applies to Brexit as well):
- If at any point you (as a government or major political figure) adopt a vocal anti-European stance, get the populace's support for it and then change your mind and decide that leaving the EU is a bad idea, then somewhere, somehow, you have ROYALLY (and nigh-criminally) screwed up. And you're fully to blame for it - because you were in the perfect position to fully discuss / explore / examine the situation before you go all 'EU is BAAAAAD'
- 'EU is BAAAAAD because they don't care for us / because the institutions are royally ****ed up' is something that you should only ever say as a government or as a political figure if you have a concrete plan of how to deal with the situation (either by changing how the EU works or by having a good plan for leaving them), and the political will to go through with it.
Obviously, as a private individual, you can say / think whatever the hell you like.
-
In this case, the statement about taking it to the streets is that the streets are not predictable, and cannot be relied upon to back the government. Any attempt to take something to the populace has a risk of backfiring upon the government, regardless of the issue in question and the government's own leanings. The leader of the government in both cases pushed for a vote and campaigned for the losing alternative, leaving themselves high and dry at the end. (Indeed, even Leave has ended up in this boat now.) This has nothing to do with "populism", being "bad", or even "the leftists". You have attempted to cast an observation as old as time as a leftist meme: "Be careful what alternatives you present to another, because they will chose one, and it will not always be the one you desired."
If the purpose of a referendum is for the populace to back the government's decisions, then is it really democratic or is it just a tool for dicatorial tendencies? It's not a true referendum if it can only exist when the chances of it going against the government's wishes are next to nil.
That's what NGTM-1R is saying: The brexit referendum was not intended to be a true referendum, but rather simply another propaganda campaign for the various people involved. However, it backfired. The message here is that one should never do a referendum that way.
-
I'm not sure I understand. Do you think the Greek government originally wanted Grexit and then changed their minds when the stakes went up? Or that they didn't want Grexit at all, ever and they used the trillion-euro-threat as a shield?
The second.
Because leaving the Eurozone does not absolve you of debt, which was meant to be paid in Euros anyway. No matter how the Greek Government handled the internal economy after a Grexit, they would still need to pay the debts in Euros, or default.
Yes, the threat was "default". If the germans pressed Greece to go to the precipice of Grexit, then the Greeks could default on their debts. The greek government had, by this point, a budget surplus. This would absolutely wreck the entire german finantial institutions and banks. Lehman Brothers et al would be a walk in the park compared to this.
I can.
Politics includes diplomacy and diplomacy includes forming a realistic view of the situation. Before deciding on policies and your diplomatic stance, you need to honestly assess your counterparts' stance, goals, capabilities and willingness to pursue them and decide accordingly.
This was actually done. Europe failed to do the same. You're merely blaming them not for any of this "realistic view" thing, but simply because they lost. You should be true to yourself.
If you're taking a vocal anti-European stance, organise a referendum in which there is a clear bias toward 'please reject this proposal' and then decide that escalating the situation is really not a good ida and decide to make a 180-degree turn and renegotiate a deal, you cannot expect the Europeans to give you a good deal. You are criminally incompetent / stupid / inexperienced for even considering it.
Yes, I agree with this. The stakes were too high and Tsipras folded. The reason why I'm saying I don't blame him is because the stakes were too high. Can you imagine the horrors that would befall the greeks if he would fail his move from that point on?
For better or worse, the European institutions have both the power and the interest to strong-arm those who would rock the boat. I agree that this is not ideal, but if you're forming a foreign / economic policy, you need to take this into account. It is a fact of EU politics. Either play their game, or draw up a realistic policy of how you can change that game, but don't go in expecting them to be 'decent' or to have your best interests in mind and then feel betrayed when they don't. And ffs, if you rock the boat be ready to end up in the drink.
And what happens when you're in an impossible situation? The problem resides precisely with the fact that Europe is being absolutely irrational with regards to the greek problem. They could have solved the problem in a few months after 2010! This fact alone should make you absolutely mad at Europe. If they insisted that the Greeks have all these cultural problems of their own, then they should force Greece to Grexit all the while helping them to do it. Discreetly print new Drachmas way outside Greece and when a long weekend came, close down every bank and change the currency within the weekend. Give them necessary aid. Restructure their debts. Say bye bye to them. Instead we have all of this unresolved shenanigan. For more than 6 years.
Regarding the "cultural greek problem" all I see is scapegoating all the problems into xenophobic remarks, which is insanely ironic, given how Merkel and co then goes to the telly saying how "bad" all of these anti-immigration people are. These people were directly responsible for the ressurgence of xenophobia within Europe and now are complaining that it is rising in their own ranks? Go **** yourselves, you pathetic little ****s!
- If at any point you (as a government or major political figure) adopt a vocal anti-European stance, get the populace's support for it and then change your mind and decide that leaving the EU is a bad idea, then somewhere, somehow, you have ROYALLY (and nigh-criminally) screwed up. And you're fully to blame for it - because you were in the perfect position to fully discuss / explore / examine the situation before you go all 'EU is BAAAAAD'
Totally agree. Brexit is a typical british dark humour comedy sketch.
- 'EU is BAAAAAD because they don't care for us / because the institutions are royally ****ed up' is something that you should only ever say as a government or as a political figure if you have a concrete plan of how to deal with the situation (either by changing how the EU works or by having a good plan for leaving them), and the political will to go through with it.
Not true. A conversation should start before "plans" are made. Anti-Europe sentiment has never been higher and we can thank Eurocrats handling of Greece for this. Politicians start conversations and debates all the time.