Ship of Fools: Greek Election and the Euro: Rematch!

Thread: Greek Election and the Euro: Rematch! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028852

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So there will be a snap Greek parliamentary election on January 25 and all the talk about "What if SYRIZA wins?" is back. SYRIZA is a far-left alliance that wants to renegotiate the terms of the bailout and is willing to act unilaterally to end austerity even if that means that Greece is kicked out of the Eurozone.

Although SYRIZA is leading in the polls and the traditional parties are doing even worse in the polls than they did before the last elections (there had to be two to get a working coalition), and even though Greece awards a lot of "bonus' parliamentary seats to whatever party gets the most votes in order to help them form a government, it looks like SYRIZA would have to form a coalition to govern, and it doesn't seem that any party that would make it into parliament that either would be willing to work with SYRIZA or that SYRIZA would be willing to work with would allow for a functioning majority, so we may wind up with two or more elections and with voters giving up on SYRIZA after they fail to form a government. (SYRIZA and the European left wing in general will then blame Germany and the banking community for undermining Greek democracy, blah blah.)

Two ironies are:

1. The Greek Communist Party is strongly in favor of ending austerity, throwing out the terms of the bailout, and exiting the Euro, but it is so purist in its old-school Cold War era Communism that it will not form any coalition with anyone, ever. (Like so many far left groups, the Greek Communist Party distrusts others on the far left more than it does its opponents from the right and center). If the Communists did form a coalition with Syriza, they would probably have a majority.

2. The neo-fascist Golden Dawn party also supports throwing out the terms of the bailout, even if that means leaving the Euro. They are more open to cooperation (although perhaps not an actual coalition) with Syriza in parliament than the Communists. But would Syriza be willing to work with neo fascists, even on an ad hoc basis? (I am not sure if Greek law allows for minority governments with confidence and supply agreements with other parties or whether coalitions must be formed.)

Another right-leaning (but nothing like Golden Dawn), Eurosceptic party, the Independent Greeks, is open to working with Syriza but might want to pull Golden Dawn into any agreement so as to improve their bargaining position and to get concessions on cracking down on immigrants - and as I said I don't know if Syriza would make any agreements with Golden Dawn (neither would I given Golden Dawn's history of violence, racism, and illegal activity). Golden Dawn makes the France's National Front seem centrist in comparison.

All that background was really just to show that a functioning Syriza-led government is not that likely, but I admit it's possible.

Here is what I'm really interested in talking about: Germany et al. seem to think that since Portugal and Ireland, though still suffering from austerity and far from thriving economically, are much less vulnerable to economic collapse than they were the last time Greece had an election, that the risk of economic catastrophe (with Spain, Italy, and perhaps even France at risk of being attacked on the bond markets by panicked investors and defaulting on their debt) is low enough this time around that a Greek exit from the Euro, although not necessarily desirable, is a possibility that can be discussed.

So: If a new Greek government wanted to end austerity and renegotiate its bailout, would a Greek exit from the Eurozone be best for the rest of the Eurozone? Could it possibly be a good thing for Greece in the long run, finally giving it the control over its own currency needed to grow its economy with cheap exports? Would it be good for other EU countries not in the Euro (who mostly depend on the Eurozone as their greatest trading partner and want it to be stable)?

This is NOT a thread to argue about the UK or any other country than Greece joining/leaving the Euro or EU. Those arguments can take up many other threads all by themselves

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Greece should default on its bailout repayments and leave the Euro, hopefully causing a chain reaction that will bring about and end to the euro once and for all.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Come on, AO, do you really want to go back to large numbers of independent states quarreling all over Europe, just like that Golden Age that never was in 1914 or 1933?

Is peace so boring that you need to cause excitement, like those weird fundies that want to set off The Apocalypse while they are still alive?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Come on, AO, do you really want to go back to large numbers of independent states quarreling all over Europe, just like that Golden Age that never was in 1914 or 1933?

Is peace so boring that you need to cause excitement, like those weird fundies that want to set off The Apocalypse while they are still alive?

So, a single currency and handing over sovereignty to foreigners stops war does it? Bollocks! Tell that to the Greeks and I'm sure they'd laugh their heads of.f The whole Greek crisis is the fault of the EU.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Come on, AO, do you really want to go back to large numbers of independent states quarreling all over Europe, just like that Golden Age that never was in 1914 or 1933?

Is peace so boring that you need to cause excitement, like those weird fundies that want to set off The Apocalypse while they are still alive?
So, a single currency and handing over sovereignty to foreigners stops war does it?

Bollocks! Tell that to the Greeks and I'm sure they'd laugh their heads of.f The whole Greek crisis is the fault of the EU.

Let's not get distracted on a tangent about whether the EU or the Euro should exist in the first place. If you want to discuss that, start another thread. This is about Greece specifically in its situation now, and whether it can renegotiate the bailout while staying in the Euro. If not, should it leave the Euro? If it does, it that good/bad for Greece, the Eurozone, and the rest of the EU?

My opinion is that Syriza probably won't be able to form a government, but current events have been surprising me lately. If it does, maybe that government might collapse once Greece's creditors start rattling their chains, even before the EU has a chance to decide on whether or not to kick Greece out of the Euro.

However, if Greece did leave the Euro, it would initially be very bad for Greece economically (bank runs, etc.) and bad for Europe, but over several years it could be quite good, if some other disaster doesn't happen. Also, the Eurozone would be stronger economically after several years without the insecurity from the Greek crisis, although many other Eurozone economies are not quite yet out of the woods.

My hope is that Greece stays in the Eurozone and that the current deflation and economic stagnation in the Eurozone convinces EU government leaders that it is finally time for Eurobonds, changing the ECB's central mission to allow economic stimulation (which it is already doing although it is not supposed to) and not just fighting inflation, and (eventually) direct taxation of European citizens from the European government, which would allow the EU to do deficit spending in order to stimulate the European economy. The solution is more debt, not less.

Of course you can point to Japan and say look at all their debt and their entrenched deflation and stagnation, but they have fallen to the other temptation facing Europe: shutting out immigrants and not providing the young with opportunities for a future that would make them want to have children (hence a graying population, high unemployment and underemployment of the young, low birth rates, and a demographic time bomb). You can't just have economic stimulus if it is only used to build unneeded roads and give healthcare/pensions to the elderly (granted - everyone needs healthcare and a living income, and the elderly certainly deserve theirs, but any society is headed for economic collapse if it is not educating and employing its youth and bringing in more workers though birth and immigration).

Ok now I've gone on a tangent. My point is I think Greece should both end its austerity (while continuing to reform its dysfunctional and inefficient economy) but stay in the Eurozone. The innumerable connections and ease of trade form having a common currency (and the complexity of financial relationships) would be a Gordian knot to untie at this point (unlike the dissolving of currency unions in the past, given globalization and computerized high-speed finance). The best way to do this is to give the EU itself the power to borrow money and carry out wide-scale economic stimulus that can fund a bailout for the people of Greece and those suffering in just about every Eurozone country, not just a bailout of its financial institutions. Austerity has not produced prosperity, plain and simple.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Almost there, AO: the Greek crisis is the fault of the Greeks, aided and abetted by the EU.

And it doesn't go back to allowing Greece into the Eurozone, it goes all the way back to allowing them into the EU at all: to do that the EU ignored evidence from Interpol and their own investigators about the rampant fraud and corruption that ran (still runs, in many areas) from top to bottom of government in Greece both at national and local level.

What has been starting to happen in Greece over the past 5 years is what should have happened before they were admitted to the EU. But the process of reform is far from complete and many Greeks fear that it would be all too easy for the old 'traditional' ways to reassert themselves.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So Bulgaria, Romania, etc., should not have been let into the EU either?

I give up on fighting tangents. I'm going on them myself.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

More integration isn't the answer. It will just alienate Europeans more and more, especially when they feel that they're being governed by some Fritz or Pierre in Brussels. Anyway, it's all part of the neo-liberal globalist plan. The only ones who benefit are the fat cats, you know, big business and politicians.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My point is I think Greece should both end its austerity (while continuing to reform its dysfunctional and inefficient economy) but stay in the Eurozone.

Is that a viable option, though? Is it possible to stay within the Eurozone system while not cooperating with the ideas of the powers in that system?

I'm honestly not sure. I do know that there are some requirements that have to be met before a country joins in the Euro (the "convergence criteria"). I don't know what obligations there are upon a country to maintain certain standards after adoption of the common currency.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

... foreigners ...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: I don't know what obligations there are upon a country to maintain certain standards after adoption of the common currency.

I think the rule of having maximum 3% deficit continues after joining.

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :

Here's a description of the European Fiscal Compact, which eurozone countries are supposed to be applying to stop thing getting even worse (I think that before the crash, there wasn't really any regulation of how euro countries had to behave as it was assumed that everyone would carry on getting richer for ever*)
Note that the only countries fully complying with it at the moment Are Germany and Luxembourg. Greece is not the only country with a debt to GDP ratio of more than 100% (though it's probably the only country seriously considering leaving the Euro to escape it's debts). I don't really understand the rest of the numbers.

*or something. I'm not an economist.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My point is I think Greece should both end its austerity (while continuing to reform its dysfunctional and inefficient economy) but stay in the Eurozone.
Is that a viable option, though? Is it possible to stay within the Eurozone system while not cooperating with the ideas of the powers in that system?

I'm honestly not sure. I do know that there are some requirements that have to be met before a country joins in the Euro (the "convergence criteria"). I don't know what obligations there are upon a country to maintain certain standards after adoption of the common currency.

Surely, part of the problem is that Greece lied about meeting the "convergence criteria" (or possibly unintentionally misled the EU) and nobody has worked out how to deal with the consequences of that. Greece should never have joined the Eurozone when it did. Now that we know that, expecting it to be able to comply with all the criteria seems a bit unfair.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by marzipan:
Here's a description of the European Fiscal Compact, which eurozone countries are supposed to be applying to stop thing getting even worse (I think that before the crash, there wasn't really any regulation of how euro countries had to behave as it was assumed that everyone would carry on getting richer for ever*)

Fining a country for being in too much debt doesn't seem like a well thought-out plan.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by marzipan:
Here's a description of the European Fiscal Compact, which eurozone countries are supposed to be applying to stop thing getting even worse (I think that before the crash, there wasn't really any regulation of how euro countries had to behave as it was assumed that everyone would carry on getting richer for ever*)
Fining a country for being in too much debt doesn't seem like a well thought-out plan.

Yes - I agree, but I guess the rules were written by bankers, and it's standard banking practice - if the account goes overdrawn, then ramp up the charges....

The whole Euro setup is wring - there's economic evidence right back to medieval times that local economies all have different growths, labour markets, and need individual currencies so that they can adapt to suit how local conditions match regional ones. Globalisation makes that even more so.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Capitalism is such a pernicious god. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

I think it best if we stop talking about Greece and hope no one notices there must be losers if we wish to continue to be winners.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My point is I think Greece should both end its austerity (while continuing to reform its dysfunctional and inefficient economy) but stay in the Eurozone.
Is that a viable option, though? Is it possible to stay within the Eurozone system.

It is, if you allow for fiscal transfers between different regions within the same currency bloc.

Unfortunately, the Germans believe they can run a trade surplus with the rest of the EU forever without any fiscal transfers or any other issues.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

So, it seems that far left Syriza is going to get about 149 seats (151 needed for overall majority), and has announced a coalition with the right wing party Greek Independents. They'll have a comfortable majority between them.

Lots of finance bigwigs have told them to respect the terms, the euro has gone to a ten year low against the dollar, and I expect anti-austerity parties in other bailed out economies are licking their lips.

What next then?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Good on the Greeks. I hope the new government have the balls to do what they said they would.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

What they said they wouldn't do is leave the euro.

I think the Syriza victory is enormously significant, and far more than a simple protest vote - there were other parties, including Golden Dawn, to vote for outside of 'business as usual'. I hope our own politicians are watching, and learning.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Whatever the Greeks do may well have a serious effect on Greece, but I don't think there will be much effect on the Euro and the EU as a whole unless one of the larger troubled economies (ie, Spain or Italy, possibly France) has the same sort of political change. If that happens, then it will affect Germany, and once that happens, there will be change.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Whatever the Greeks do may well have a serious effect on Greece, but I don't think there will be much effect on the Euro and the EU as a whole unless one of the larger troubled economies (ie, Spain or Italy, possibly France) has the same sort of political change. If that happens, then it will affect Germany, and once that happens, there will be change.

That's why I don't think the current Troika (European Central Bank, European Commission and the IMF) will be queuing up offer the Greeks an incredible new deal. They won't want other countries getting big ideas either. On the other hand, they won't want all the other countries exiting the Euro.

Apparently the new government has no plans to meet the Troika, and plans to hold talks directly with other governments. Given the supposed independence of the ECB and the primacy of the EC over member states, that will be interesting.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Come on, AO, do you really want to go back to large numbers of independent states quarreling all over Europe, just like that Golden Age that never was in 1914 or 1933?

Is peace so boring that you need to cause excitement, like those weird fundies that want to set off The Apocalypse while they are still alive?

Indeed. The main government party in Ireland, the centre to centre right Fine Gael, has still bigger polling approval than Sinn Fein and the far left. I don't appreciate ideological idiots who for whom the Euro is something abstract or intellectual sticking their oar in. Real people with real livelihoods are involved here, so unless you want to replace my asset values that will be destroyed with a return to the Irish Pound, this time backed by neither GBP nor the DM, anti EU ideologues need to kindly put a cork in it.

We are not all irresponsible idiots in the Eurozone.

[ 26. January 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Come on, AO, do you really want to go back to large numbers of independent states quarreling all over Europe, just like that Golden Age that never was in 1914 or 1933?

There's a difference between being anti-EU and anti the Euro as currently constituted.

There is a case to be made that the current set of policies of increasing austerity within the most troubled areas of Euro Zone are going to lead to an entire wasted generation in terms of growth.

That has all sorts of knock in effects - including a greater chance of future international strife.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Come on, AO, do you really want to go back to large numbers of independent states quarreling all over Europe, just like that Golden Age that never was in 1914 or 1933?

There's a difference between being anti-EU and anti the Euro as currently constituted.

There is a case to be made that the current set of policies of increasing austerity within the most troubled areas of Euro Zone are going to lead to an entire wasted generation in terms of growth.

That has all sorts of knock in effects - including a greater chance of future international strife.

And what do Europe's leaders do? They bury their heads in the sand and call for more centralisation. Fortunately Europeans are beginning to realise that it's all a load of bollocks, that this elite group in Brussels is responsible for the crisis and that the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

AO [Overused]

Summed-up beautifully.

As for Angela, David and Francois not having much to worry about, they should start to take an interest in Spain.

The main parties of left and right in Spain are not noted for being anything other than supine in the face of EU demands for austerity; elections to the EU parliament have been noted for arousing apathy.

But in 2014 Podemos managed to get 8% of the vote and thus 5 seats, even though it had only been a political party for a few months. Its level of support has grown hugely since then and its founder has made several trips to Athens to compare notes with Mr Tsipras.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
AO

Summed-up beautifully.

As for Angela, David and Francois not having much to worry about, they should start to take an interest in Spain.

The main parties of left and right in Spain are not noted for being anything other than supine in the face of EU demands for austerity; elections to the EU parliament have been noted for arousing apathy.

But in 2014 Podemos managed to get 8% of the vote and thus 5 seats, even though it had only been a political party for a few months. Its level of support has grown hugely since then and its founder has made several trips to Athens to compare notes with Mr Tsipras.

Well I won't live in a Sinn Fein Ireland. This is not something abstract we're talking about here.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what do Europe's leaders do? They bury their heads in the sand and call for more centralisation. Fortunately Europeans are beginning to realise that it's all a load of bollocks, that this elite group in Brussels is responsible for the crisis and that the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.

You make it sound like we're ruled by a bunch of lizards.

Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too.

The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Austerity measures are hurting a lot of people, especially so in countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal that were very badly hit by the recession. The electorate in those countries know that austerity policies are hurting them, so it isn't a big suprise if they vote for parties saying they will ease or remove those measures.

In countries like the UK where austerity measures have not hurt as many people, and those it has affected the impacts have generally been less, I don't think people are going to be swayed by politicians promising to ease those measures. When the hurt isn't as severe people are more likely to think it's a reasonable cost for a sustainable fiscal policy. Yes, people will vote for more funding for the NHS or schools, but many people would want to spend more there regardless of cuts made by the government to reduce national spending. In May in the UK, the political battle lines will be drawn on issues other than a simple anti-austerity platform. Therefore, I don't think the Greek result will directly influence UK politics. The upset caused in financial markets may do, indirectly, especially if they push the UK economy back towards recession.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
... the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.

And the national governments have done such a fantastic job of things over the course of the twentieth century.

There is also a simple and obvious fact that can't be ducked, that neither Mr Micawber, nor any other private person nor a government can spend more than they earn without there being a day of reckoning.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what do Europe's leaders do? They bury their heads in the sand and call for more centralisation. Fortunately Europeans are beginning to realise that it's all a load of bollocks, that this elite group in Brussels is responsible for the crisis and that the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.
You make it sound like we're ruled by a bunch of lizards.

Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too.

The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.

But Europeans haven't really had a choice. All the main parties are neo-liberal globalists. It's only recently that real alternatives have begun to pop up.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Doc Tor

quote:
Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too. The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.

Our leaders, put there by us: yes in the case of the PM of the UK, First Minister in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

But NO in the case of the President of the EU: no one in the UK had the chance to vote for the President of the EU Parliament, same as none of us have ever been given a ballot paper with the names of Herman van Rompuy or his successor (Donald Tusk) on it.

And before anyone says these people have all been voted into some European role by their own nation that's not true: Baroness Ashton, EU Representative for Foreign Affairs, is a Brit who's never stood for an election here.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what do Europe's leaders do? They bury their heads in the sand and call for more centralisation. Fortunately Europeans are beginning to realise that it's all a load of bollocks, that this elite group in Brussels is responsible for the crisis and that the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.
You make it sound like we're ruled by a bunch of lizards.

Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too.

The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.
But Europeans haven't really had a choice. All the main parties are neo-liberal globalists. It's only recently that real alternatives have begun to pop up.

Yes, in the UK, we have 3 centre-right parties, with little difference between them.

And the alternatives are very difficult to get elected - I was thinking of voting Green, but I live in a safe Tory majority seat, so there is little point, except as a protest. FPTP muffles many people's voices.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And the national governments have done such a fantastic job of things over the course of the twentieth century.

They may have cocked up now and then but at least they're our governments and not some foreign elite far away who couldn't give a shit. A good example is the sanctions against Russia: it's easy to be for them when they don't really affect your economy. Personally I think we should stick two fingers up at the sanctions.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Europeans haven't really had a choice. All the main parties are neo-liberal globalists. It's only recently that real alternatives have begun to pop up.

This is the lizards argument again. If people wanted to vote for alternatives to neo-liberal globalists, then they would have formed their own party, made the arguments, and swept to power on the back of popular sentiment.

It didn't happen. QED.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, in the UK, we have 3 centre-right parties, with little difference between them.

And the alternatives are very difficult to get elected - I was thinking of voting Green, but I live in a safe Tory majority seat, so there is little point, except as a protest. FPTP muffles many people's voices.

This is a valid point, and why I voted for the deeply flawed AV option when it was offered. (As opposed to a simple STV, which was the obvious choice for PR, and therefore not allowed.)

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Europeans haven't really had a choice. All the main parties are neo-liberal globalists. It's only recently that real alternatives have begun to pop up.
This is the lizards argument again. If people wanted to vote for alternatives to neo-liberal globalists, then they would have formed their own party, made the arguments, and swept to power on the back of popular sentiment.

It didn't happen. QED.

That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one. Anyway, that's slowly beginning to happen.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

It didn't happen. QED.

Putting together a party and contesting elections requires a fairly large amount of money in most of the western world, and a fairly friendly media.

There are serious arguments that never see the light of day - for instance, there is a fairly respectable argument to be made that Osborne is currently overdoing the emphasis on austerity - but try to suggest in the media that we shouldn't be so worried about the deficit and see how far that gets you.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

There is also a simple and obvious fact that can't be ducked, that neither Mr Micawber, nor any other private person nor a government can spend more than they earn without there being a day of reckoning.

You can't compare a government with a sovereign currency in which they issue debt to a private individual.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

There is also a simple and obvious fact that can't be ducked, that neither Mr Micawber, nor any other private person nor a government can spend more than they earn without there being a day of reckoning.
You can't compare a government with a sovereign currency in which they issue debt to a private individual.

But Greece doesn't have a sovereign currency, wherein lies some of the problem, so Enoch's observation is closer to the mark than it would be for, say, the UK or the USA.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Europeans haven't really had a choice. All the main parties are neo-liberal globalists. It's only recently that real alternatives have begun to pop up.
This is the lizards argument again. If people wanted to vote for alternatives to neo-liberal globalists, then they would have formed their own party, made the arguments, and swept to power on the back of popular sentiment.

It didn't happen. QED.
That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one. Anyway, that's slowly beginning to happen.

Which exactly proves my point. Sorry if previously too few people have agreed with you in the past, but lots of them still don't. That's representative democracy for you.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

There is also a simple and obvious fact that can't be ducked, that neither Mr Micawber, nor any other private person nor a government can spend more than they earn without there being a day of reckoning.
You can't compare a government with a sovereign currency in which they issue debt to a private individual.

How many democratically elected governments really have any say in the currency? 99% of monetary policy is set to further business interests, and has been stated elsewhere that benefits the population very indirectly, if at all.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Europeans haven't really had a choice. All the main parties are neo-liberal globalists. It's only recently that real alternatives have begun to pop up.
This is the lizards argument again. If people wanted to vote for alternatives to neo-liberal globalists, then they would have formed their own party, made the arguments, and swept to power on the back of popular sentiment.

It didn't happen. QED.
That's a non sequitur if ever I saw one. Anyway, that's slowly beginning to happen.
Which exactly proves my point. Sorry if previously too few people have agreed with you in the past, but lots of them still don't. That's representative democracy for you.

Chris counters your argument fairly well, that it's not quite as easy as you seem to think it is because the cards are stacked.

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

I'm going to Poland on Thursday, and I really hate that I can't use my Euros there.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Chris counters your argument fairly well, that it's not quite as easy as you seem to think it is because the cards are stacked.

He points out a problem with representative democracy, which is where the entry bar for new movements is set.

But as has been shown, it doesn't actually matter where it's set. If you have a groundswell of opinion, it'll happen. Yes, the old parties and old media can make it difficult. What they can't do is prevent it.

I'm not pretending it's easy. I never said it was easy. I'm just saying it's inevitable. All it needs is votes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

There is also a simple and obvious fact that can't be ducked, that neither Mr Micawber, nor any other private person nor a government can spend more than they earn without there being a day of reckoning.
You can't compare a government with a sovereign currency in which they issue debt to a private individual.

Can't you?

The evidence over the last 70 odd years strongly persuades me that the argument that government debt is somehow different and governed by different rules is a convenient delusion. It has been used as an excuse by politicians to massage their consciences with when they want to buy voters with money they haven't got and their economies can't afford to raise.

I could say 'what about PFI?' But I feel a rant coming on.

[ 26. January 2015, 22:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The evidence over the last 70 odd years strongly persuades me that the argument that government debt is somehow different and governed by different rules is a convenient delusion.

What evidence would that be? Of course there are problems with runaway national debt in certain circumstances (a lot of which involved foreign denominated debt or currency pegs). That's not the same as the two situations being analogous though.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I'm not pretending it's easy. I never said it was easy. I'm just saying it's inevitable. All it needs is votes.

Well, clearly from situations elsewhere it can also get to a point where it's as easy to initiate change of government via non-democratic means as it is via democratic means. So at least that's one of the problems with setting the bar too high.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I'm not pretending it's easy. I never said it was easy. I'm just saying it's inevitable. All it needs is votes.
Well, clearly from situations elsewhere it can also get to a point where it's as easy to initiate change of government via non-democratic means as it is via democratic means. So at least that's one of the problems with setting the bar too high.

And that's certainly something that entrenched power structures need to remember. If there's no legitimate, democratic means to express and affect change, there's always the "let's burn shit down" option. That doesn't always end well.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And that's certainly something that entrenched power structures need to remember. If there's no legitimate, democratic means to express and affect change, there's always the "let's burn shit down" option. That doesn't always end well.

Absolutely. But to get to this point can take decades, which goes against the idea that if change had to happen it would have happened already, and because it didn't happen there wasn't any support for it.

There is hysteresis and friction in there.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I don't think it is it doesn't always end well as much as it is it always doesnt end well. For someone.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I'm not pretending it's easy. I never said it was easy. I'm just saying it's inevitable. All it needs is votes.
Well, clearly from situations elsewhere it can also get to a point where it's as easy to initiate change of government via non-democratic means as it is via democratic means. So at least that's one of the problems with setting the bar too high.

This happens all the time in the West, usually when business interests feel at risk. They have the economic muscle to subvert democracy, and aren't slow to use it. An example is George Soros did this single-handedly causing the 'Black Wednesday' of 1992 when he sold $10 billion of UK government bonds causing a currency crisis and forcing the UK out of the ERM.

Whether the UK should have been in the ERM or not ought to be a decision for a democratically elected government, not one wealthy person who moreover is neither a UK national nor resident in the UK.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I'm not pretending it's easy. I never said it was easy. I'm just saying it's inevitable. All it needs is votes.
Well, clearly from situations elsewhere it can also get to a point where it's as easy to initiate change of government via non-democratic means as it is via democratic means. So at least that's one of the problems with setting the bar too high.
This happens all the time in the West, usually when business interests feel at risk. They have the economic muscle to subvert democracy, and aren't slow to use it. An example is George Soros did this single-handedly causing the 'Black Wednesday' of 1992 when he sold $10 billion of UK government bonds causing a currency crisis and forcing the UK out of the ERM.

Whether the UK should have been in the ERM or not ought to be a decision for a democratically elected government, not one wealthy person who moreover is neither a UK national nor resident in the UK.

This year's version being TTIP

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

btw, TTIP is this. Note it's from the Independent, not some 'Far-Left' publication, nor even Private Eye.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Why doesn't the EU do the necessary treaty changes so that it can just let the European Parliament be the sole initiator and approver of EU law - as well as the body that elects an EU Prime Minister and EU ministers (ie, and EU government). Scrap the European Commission separate from any EU government not appointed by the European Parliament. Scrap the Council of Europe as well. Make it a real European democratic government without all the Eurocrats in the way. I know that the national elites in each country are terrified of losing their ability to gum up EU policy through back channels if something like this happens (they would also lose their convenient ability to blame things on the anti-democratic EU) but honestly right now the options political parties seem to offer is an ever more complicated, bureaucratic, and less transparent EU where direct democratic control by EU citizens (instead of very indirect control through EU heads of government and the Eurocrats appointed by patronage from each EU member state)...or a complete or partial dismantling of EU integration.

Why can't you have a strong, integrated Europe that is directly democratically controlled by its citizens? Why don't you see major political voices calling for this? Even the protest parties all seem to be Eurosceptic. Where are the parties for a democratic EU?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Cos it's all bollocks. Greater intergration and centralisation, albeit solely in the hands of an elected EU parliament, isn't the answer. Nations want to decide their own future.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Cos it's all bollocks. Greater intergration and centralisation, albeit solely in the hands of an elected EU parliament, isn't the answer. Nations want to decide their own future.

In that case they had better tell businesses to back off. Wall Street and the Square Mile have far more influence that Brussels, Washington and Westminster. That is where power is centralised.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Cos it's all bollocks. Greater intergration and centralisation, albeit solely in the hands of an elected EU parliament, isn't the answer. Nations want to decide their own future.
In that case they had better tell businesses to back off. Wall Street and the Square Mile have far more influence that Brussels, Washington and Westminster. That is where power is centralised.

They do have too much power, I agree,

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Cos it's all bollocks. Greater intergration and centralisation, albeit solely in the hands of an elected EU parliament, isn't the answer. Nations want to decide their own future.
In that case they had better tell businesses to back off. Wall Street and the Square Mile have far more influence that Brussels, Washington and Westminster. That is where power is centralised.
They do have too much power, I agree,

If nations really want to decide their own future, they are going to need an astonishingly effective time machine. Unless your nation is the size of China or India, the days of such single-nation determinism as an effective model, rather than a distracting if entertaining pipedream, are definitively over and gone.

Pooling sovereignty in a way that is outside the control of neoliberal Eurocrats is the way forward. Only through this, and an appropriate structure to facilitate it, can any form of democratic control be exercised.

[ 27. January 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

But, you see, having a Frenchman or a German or whatever, even if the be democratically elected, decide what happens in Finland for example, often goes against our national interests. A good example, which I pointed out earlier, is the sanctions agains Russia.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

First they came for the Ukrainians, but I did not speak out... [Disappointed]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

A tangent, but I put most of the blame on the EU and US/Nato. That's not to say Russia is without any blame. But to get on track, I object that my country is forced to act against its own interests. It's hurting our economy a lot. I suppose it's easy to be for them, pretending to take the moral high ground, when it has little affect on your economy.

[ 27. January 2015, 17:13: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A tangent, but I put most of the blame on the EU and US/Nato.

Pfft.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A tangent, but I put most of the blame on the EU and US/Nato.

Yes, because the EU, US and NATO have got troops on the ground in the Ukraine, arming rebels with rockets to fire into civilian areas, and generally throwing their military weight around inside another sovereign, independent, democratic nation. Unlike the Russians who have no military involvement in the Ukraine at all.

And, in other news flying pigs have been observed in the skies over Helsinki.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A tangent, but I put most of the blame on the EU and US/Nato.
Yes, because the EU, US and NATO have got troops on the ground in the Ukraine, arming rebels with rockets to fire into civilian areas, and generally throwing their military weight around inside another sovereign, independent, democratic nation. Unlike the Russians who have no military involvement in the Ukraine at all.

And, in other news flying pigs have been observed in the skies over Helsinki.

I never said Russia was without blame. Nevertheless, it was Western politicians stirring up the shit at the beginning. Still, that has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which is that being forced to act against our own interests is unacceptable. And I'll say for the third time, that it's easy to claim the moral high ground when the impact on your economy is minimal or when you don't have Russia as your neighbour.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nevertheless, it was Western politicians stirring up the shit at the beginning.

Curse them and their rascally trade deals, EU membership track and defence pacts! (shakes fist impotently).

If that's shit-stirring, find me a paddle.

quote:
And I'll say for the third time, that it's easy to claim the moral high ground when the impact on your economy is minimal or when you don't have Russia as your neighbour.

You mean countries like the Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland, who want us to go in even harder, and have as much, if not more trade than Finland with Russia?

They seem to be able to combine the moral high ground and take the economic hit. I'm guessing it's because they don't want whatever their equivalent of Vyborg or the Crimea swallowed up, and have chosen to make a principled stand.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Taking a moral stance is much more meaningful when it hurts you.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Personally I think Russia has a valid grievance when it comes to EU and Nato expansionism. Personally I see Nato as more of a threat than Russia.

But the point is, this is one of the reasons I'm against EU centralisation, federalism etc. We shouldn't be forced into taking partisan position when it's not in our interests.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Personally I think Russia has a valid grievance when it comes to EU and Nato expansionism. Personally I see Nato as more of a threat than Russia.

But the point is, this is one of the reasons I'm against EU centralisation, federalism etc. We shouldn't be forced into taking partisan position when it's not in our interests.

Losing Karelia wasn't in your best interests, either.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Personally I think Russia has a valid grievance when it comes to EU and Nato expansionism. Personally I see Nato as more of a threat than Russia.

But the point is, this is one of the reasons I'm against EU centralisation, federalism etc. We shouldn't be forced into taking partisan position when it's not in our interests.
Losing Karelia wasn't in your best interests, either.

No, but we had no choice. When all else failed it was better to lose that than the whole country.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem (emphasis supplied):
Cos it's all bollocks. Greater intergration and centralisation, albeit solely in the hands of an elected EU parliament, isn't the answer. Nations want to decide their own future.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Personally I think Russia has a valid grievance when it comes to EU and Nato expansionism. Personally I see Nato as more of a threat than Russia.

Is there not a contradiction here? If nations have the right to decide their own future then countries like the Baltic states have the right to decide whether to join the EU or NATO, don't they?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No, but we had no choice. When all else failed it was better to lose that than the whole country.

Yes, it was. After all else failed. Which is why eastern European countries are lining up to join NATO and the EU, so that they're not put in that position by Russia, the nation that seems to make a habit of annexing bits of their neighbours.

For all its faults, the EU is simply streets ahead of Russia, economically, socially, and politically - whatever index of well-being you want to pick.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No, but we had no choice. When all else failed it was better to lose that than the whole country.
Yes, it was. After all else failed. Which is why eastern European countries are lining up to join NATO and the EU, so that they're not put in that position by Russia, the nation that seems to make a habit of annexing bits of their neighbours.

For all its faults, the EU is simply streets ahead of Russia, economically, socially, and politically - whatever index of well-being you want to pick.

Even on a basis of effective democracy. Whether Czarist, Communist or post-Communist, I don't think Russia has ever been remotely democratic. irrespective of its title

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what do Europe's leaders do? They bury their heads in the sand and call for more centralisation. Fortunately Europeans are beginning to realise that it's all a load of bollocks, that this elite group in Brussels is responsible for the crisis and that the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.
You make it sound like we're ruled by a bunch of lizards.

Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too.

The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.

My big problem with some of the noises coming out of Europe is that the Greeks have voted for a different party and a different prime minister, and yet other powers in Europe are verging on saying that it makes not a jot of difference.

Which raises fairly fundamental questions about whether the countries in the European Union are still independent, sovereign, countries. If they are, then elections still mean something and the new Greek government is perfectly entitled to say that it's taking a different tack based on the expressed political will of the Greek people.

I don't actually have much of a view on the merits or otherwise of various aspects of the European Union, other than noticing that something about the current arrangements is not working very well for countries like Greece and Spain. But I do have a strong view that if the countries are still independent countries, it is not good for either central European agencies or the governments of other, bigger European countries to tell Greece what to do in a fashion that sounds as if the national government of Greece has no power.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Doc Tor
quote:
Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too. The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.
Our leaders, put there by us: yes in the case of the PM of the UK, First Minister in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

But NO in the case of the President of the EU: no one in the UK had the chance to vote for the President of the EU Parliament, same as none of us have ever been given a ballot paper with the names of Herman van Rompuy or his successor (Donald Tusk) on it.

And before anyone says these people have all been voted into some European role by their own nation that's not true: Baroness Ashton, EU Representative for Foreign Affairs, is a Brit who's never stood for an election here.

This is a silly argument. The Prime Minister of the UK isn't on your ballot paper either, and if his fellow MPs stop liking him they can oust him without your involvement. It's happened twice in Australia in recent years.

[ 28. January 2015, 02:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And of course, people do not vote for the President of the US either. They vote for an electoral college, called by that name. Here and in the UK, the PM is elected by an electoral college called the party room. AIUI, the various grand poohbahs in the EU are elected by those themselves elected.

I wonder what the Finnish translation of poujadist is - can anyone help? Perhaps Tolkien knew it.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is a silly argument. The Prime Minister of the UK isn't on your ballot paper either, and if his fellow MPs stop liking him they can oust him without your involvement. It's happened twice in Australia in recent years.

And somewhat possible that it will happen again sometime in the next few months, quicker if Sir Gaffalot makes any more captain's decisions!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Rather than just here and the UK, I should of course said jurisdictions which follow the Westminster system, as well as many of those in continental Europe.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I wonder what the Finnish translation of poujadist is - can anyone help? Perhaps Tolkien knew it.

I doubt there is one.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what do Europe's leaders do? They bury their heads in the sand and call for more centralisation. Fortunately Europeans are beginning to realise that it's all a load of bollocks, that this elite group in Brussels is responsible for the crisis and that the only way to remedy this is to give back powers to national governments and if that means dismantling the Euro than all the better.
You make it sound like we're ruled by a bunch of lizards.

Our leaders were put there by us. If we want different leaders, we vote for different parties and have different prime ministers. If we want a less cohesive Europe, we can vote for that, too.

The traffic has, for several decades, been mostly one way. You want someone to blame, then blame the majority of European voters.
My big problem with some of the noises coming out of Europe is that the Greeks have voted for a different party and a different prime minister, and yet other powers in Europe are verging on saying that it makes not a jot of difference.

Which raises fairly fundamental questions about whether the countries in the European Union are still independent, sovereign, countries. If they are, then elections still mean something and the new Greek government is perfectly entitled to say that it's taking a different tack based on the expressed political will of the Greek people.

I don't actually have much of a view on the merits or otherwise of various aspects of the European Union, other than noticing that something about the current arrangements is not working very well for countries like Greece and Spain. But I do have a strong view that if the countries are still independent countries, it is not good for either central European agencies or the governments of other, bigger European countries to tell Greece what to do in a fashion that sounds as if the national government of Greece has no power.

That is indeed the essence of many people's concerns over the EU - that it has morphed from being a free trade block to a political body with particular powers over member states.

I'm sure you will have heard of Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). He and his party favour British withdrawl from the EU on the grounds that that is the only way we can get back to controlling our own affairs.

His particular bugbear is immigration, and this is a reasonable example of what you refer to. In the EU, there is freedom of movement. If I wanted to go and work in another EU country then I can, 'cos that's the rules. Farage's argument is that as long as we are in the EU, we can't control immigration due to the EU rules on free movement.

The question of who actually decided those rules is more subtle - EU heads of government, the EU parliament, some bureaucrats etc etc. But they are the rules.

In the case of the Greek debt, the position is not just of the EU, as the European Central Bank and the IMF are also in the game. But the EU does have some rules about financial matters as well. Although when all is said and done, I think it boils down to the fact that they've lent the Greeks a ludicrous amount of money and they'd like it back.

ETA - The new Greek PM has said that they won't default, but will seek to continue to negotiate a more bearable settlement. The EU finance ministers and EU states are continuing to insist that they've got to pay up, and that if they default then they'll have to leave the Euro.

[ 28. January 2015, 09:55: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is a silly argument. The Prime Minister of the UK isn't on your ballot paper either, and if his fellow MPs stop liking him they can oust him without your involvement. It's happened twice in Australia in recent years.
And somewhat possible that it will happen again sometime in the next few months, quicker if Sir Gaffalot makes any more captain's decisions!

Tangent obviously, but...

The Australian newspaper had 1 front page article, 3 columns and an editorial all devoted to how awful and bizarre Tony Abbot's knighthood decision was. One column flatly said it was the worst decision of his tenure.

This is The Australian. Most definitely right-wing and government friendly. It just emphasises how badly he got this wrong that even his friends are saying that this was incredibly bad. People literally didn't believe that he'd made the decision, that was how bad the decision was!

[/tangent]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I do have a strong view that if the countries are still independent countries, it is not good for either central European agencies or the governments of other, bigger European countries to tell Greece what to do in a fashion that sounds as if the national government of Greece has no power.

I think the Greek government surrendered its power to the people with whom it got heavily indebted, which tends to be a feature of excessive debt. The EU offered to save them from their creditors by giving them money if they fulfilled certain conditions, which again tends to be a feature of grants. Mr Tsipras believes Greece would have got a better deal by negotiating directly with its creditors.

No part of this seems to me unproblematic but the issue I think (in this case) resides with the nature of sovereign debt, rather than the EU's weak democratic structures.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Orfeo

quote:
The Prime Minister of the UK isn't on your ballot paper either, and if his fellow MPs stop liking him they can oust him without your involvement. It's happened twice in Australia in recent years.

The PM of the UK is on A ballot paper in the UK - Mr Van Rompuy, Baroness Ashton, etc, were appointed by, not elected either by their own country or in an EU-wide poll.

As we've seen, the EU doesn't really trust democracy; when countries hold a referendum that comes up with the 'wrong' decision they either get them to pass a law to bring in the treaty by other means or make them hold another vote - see Denmark & the Maastricht Treaty and Ireland & the Nice Treaty.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: The Prime Minister of the UK isn't on your ballot paper either, and if his fellow MPs stop liking him they can oust him without your involvement. It's happened twice in Australia in recent years.

(Can't you do it again? Please?)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

As we've seen, the EU doesn't really trust democracy; when countries hold a referendum that comes up with the 'wrong' decision they either get them to pass a law to bring in the treaty by other means or make them hold another vote - see Denmark & the Maastricht Treaty and Ireland & the Nice Treaty.

The UK isn't much better. The House of Lords is even less democratic than the European Commission and the manner in which the Prime Minister was chosen was less accountable than the appointment of the Pope.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Orfeo
quote:
The Prime Minister of the UK isn't on your ballot paper either, and if his fellow MPs stop liking him they can oust him without your involvement. It's happened twice in Australia in recent years.
The PM of the UK is on A ballot paper in the UK - Mr Van Rompuy, Baroness Ashton, etc, were appointed by, not elected either by their own country or in an EU-wide poll.

As a constituency MP. You get zero say about whether he, or anyone else, gets to be PM. If they felt so inclined, a party could win a general election then immediately ditch their leader and elect a new one and there'd be nothing you, me or anyone else could do about it.

quote:
As we've seen, the EU doesn't really trust democracy; when countries hold a referendum that comes up with the 'wrong' decision they either get them to pass a law to bring in the treaty by other means or make them hold another vote - see Denmark & the Maastricht Treaty and Ireland & the Nice Treaty.

It was Lisbon, not Nice.

And in both cases, Denmark and Ireland were able to extract concessions from the EU before putting the treaties back to their populaces - so it really wasn't a case of simply "making them hold another", it was asking them to vote on an amended treaty. That's democracy, isn't it: hearing the concerns of the electorate and then seeking to address them in negotiations before going back to them and saying "We've listened, what do you think now?"

In both cases, the votes to accept the revised treaties were greater than the votes to reject them in the first place (Denmark it went from 50.7% against in the first referendum to 56.7% in favour in the second; Ireland it went from 53.4% against in the first to 67.13% in favour in the second).

Wiki article on the 2nd Danish referendum and on second Irish referendum.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

As we've seen, the EU doesn't really trust democracy; when countries hold a referendum that comes up with the 'wrong' decision they either get them to pass a law to bring in the treaty by other means or make them hold another vote - see Denmark & the Maastricht Treaty and Ireland & the Nice Treaty.
The UK isn't much better. The House of Lords is even less democratic than the European Commission and the manner in which the Prime Minister was chosen was less accountable than the appointment of the Pope.

But at least they're British citizens deciding on British issues.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

As opposed to Europeans deciding on European issues?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The PM of the UK is on A ballot paper in the UK - Mr Van Rompuy, Baroness Ashton, etc, were appointed by, not elected either by their own country or in an EU-wide poll.

We've had at least one case of a cabinet minister not being (then) elected (I think it might have been Mandleson).
I don't believe there is any more requirement for the PM. I get the impression it's more convention than constitution.
He is appointed by elected MP's in (almost) the same way the very same people appoint EU reps (Excluding the ones that are directly elected). It's just the habits that the people use are different.

Though that whole revotes/no-revotes decision thing is ugly and looks wrong (even when I prefer the outcome). Though Europe isn't the only offender, and I don't have an alternative either.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

I don't believe there is any more requirement for the PM. I get the impression it's more convention than constitution.

The last Prime Minister to have not stood for public election was Lord Sailsbury, who left office in 1902.

The Earl of Home, of course, served as Prime Minister from the House of Lords for a few days before disclaiming his title, but prior to his ascension to the Earldom had been an elected MP.
(Incidentally, Sir Alec Douglas-Home is also the only person in recent times to have been Prime Minister while being a member of neither House of Parliament.)

The requirement for the Prime Minister to sit in the House of Commons is a "well-established convention". It would be unthinkable for anything else to happen now.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The last Prime Minister to have not stood for public election was Lord Salisbury, who left office in 1902.

Looks like my memory is faulty. Salisbury was an MP before inheriting his title, too, although he was Marquess of Salisbury for the whole of his premiership.

Also, I can't spell Salisbury.

[ 29. January 2015, 19:21: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The last person appointed to being in the cabinet without having ever been elected was Charlie Falconer: Tony Blair named him Solicitor General at the same time as nominating him for his life peerage.

Before that the convention had been that the Solicitor General had been someone in the Commons who was then usually given a life peerage either after a couple of years or when they stood down (for example Sir Michael Havers, Nicholas Lyell).

[ 29. January 2015, 21:57: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A key requirement for being PM is that one has to have the support of a majority in the House of Common. Otherwise one will be repeatedly voted down and will not be able to govern effectively.

It's still theoretically possible to be a PM from the House of Lords, but one would have to have the support of someone very effective to manage the Commons for you. Such a person would be bound, fairly soon, to conclude they could do the job themselves.

In 1923 Bonar-Law retired as PM. In those days, the political parties still to some extent left it to the king to try and find out who could form a new government. The most obvious PMs were Lord Curzon (a peer) and Stanley Baldwin (not a peer). George V after sounding out various people as to whom they would work with, invited Baldwin. This was on the grounds that as Curzon was not in the Commons, it was not fitting that he should be PM. Since then, this has been assumed to be a binding precedent.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There is an election in Queensland tomorrow, and there is extensive discussion of the real possibility that the party currently in power will remain in power, but that the Premier will lose his seat.

This is a perfect illustration of the fact that the leader is not who you're voting for. The will of the Queensland people as a whole might be to retain Campbell Newman as Premier, but that matters not one jot if the people in his own electorate reject him.

I just find L'Organist's line of argument misconceived, the same as I found it misconceived the last time I encountered it (which I think involved the West Lothian question). If you want direct election of a leader it is possible, but it's not the system in the United Kingdom and thus it's silly to hold that up as some kind of direct election ideal that Europe is failing to meet.

[ 30. January 2015, 00:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Back to Greece: Since Syriza formed a coalition with the right-wing, anti-austerity but also anti-immigrant Independent Greeks, will the new government have to crack down on immigration? Will it need to be harsh to the immigrants already there? What was Syriza's pre-election (and pre-coalition) policy on immigrants and immigration?

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Back to Greece: Since Syriza formed a coalition with the right-wing, anti-austerity but also anti-immigrant Independent Greeks, will the new government have to crack down on immigration? Will it need to be harsh to the immigrants already there? What was Syriza's pre-election (and pre-coalition) policy on immigrants and immigration?

There are, by all accounts, many differences between the two parties - as might be expected, given they are from oppostie ends of the political spectrum.

The Independent Greeks are "more" anti immigrant, with Syriza apparently favouring more interaction with Europe on immigration, including EU help to shore up Greek borders.

Independent Greeks also want a greater role for the Orthodox Church in state education, whereas Tsipras has already raised some eyebrows by taking a secular oath as opposed to a religious one.

Most articles I've read don't seem very optimistic that the coalition will last as their only common ground is the financial situation.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I must confess to being more than a little surprised that no one on here has mentioned the Syriza refusal to agree with the EU sanctions on Russia over the latest outbreak of fighting in the Ukraine.

You do realise that the first foreign representative Mr Tsipras met after the election was the Russian ambassador?

Last year the Syriza foreign affairs man, Costas Isychos, attacked sanctions on Russia as 'neocolonial bulimia' and then went on to praise the military prowess of the separatist fighters in Donetsk and Eastern Ukraine - al backed by the Kremlin, of course. He was conspicuously silent when Kremlin-backed separatists shot down the Malaysian Airlines 'plane, of course.

Now the talk is that Syriza is looking to do a deal with Russia over agricultural produce, so breaking the sanctions agreed by the rest of the EU.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

I like the geezer.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I must confess to being more than a little surprised that no one on here has mentioned the Syriza refusal to agree with the EU sanctions on Russia over the latest outbreak of fighting in the Ukraine.

You do realise that the first foreign representative Mr Tsipras met after the election was the Russian ambassador?

Last year the Syriza foreign affairs man, Costas Isychos, attacked sanctions on Russia as 'neocolonial bulimia' and then went on to praise the military prowess of the separatist fighters in Donetsk and Eastern Ukraine - al backed by the Kremlin, of course. He was conspicuously silent when Kremlin-backed separatists shot down the Malaysian Airlines 'plane, of course.

Now the talk is that Syriza is looking to do a deal with Russia over agricultural produce, so breaking the sanctions agreed by the rest of the EU.

Well, apparently the Greeks were hit very hard by the export ban to Russia on account of Russia consuming much of Greece's peach production....

Of course, the Russians would love to make an alliance with Greece just in case they end up exiting the Euro - but does leaving the Euro mean they are out of the rest of the EU as well? If not, there's still rules to be complied to aren't there?

I'm sure there'll be plenty of other posturing on both the Greek and EU (and maybe Russia) sides, and then they'll just kick the can further down the road and come up with a face saving deal on all sides.

The EU aren't going to want the Russians (or anyone else) getting a foot in instead.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I must confess to being more than a little surprised that no one on here has mentioned the Syriza refusal to agree with the EU sanctions on Russia over the latest outbreak of fighting in the Ukraine.

The best that can be said about the EU (and by extension US) policy towards Ukraine, is that they supported a marginally less nasty strain of oligarch than the Russians did.

These days with neo-nazis in Kiev, even that is open to debate.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
lowlands_boy: Of course, the Russians would love to make an alliance with Greece just in case they end up exiting the Euro

That's starting to look like a cold war scenario. But I don't think Greece can count on much financial support from Russia. That country has some problems of its own.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Yes, I agree, they do.

This article has some interesting thoughts, although is a bit pessimistic I think. (The author is also flogging his new book).

I think in the end, face saving deals will me made as people will think they are better together....

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It makes a lot of sense, if the Germans won't play ball, for the Greeks to see what they can get out of the Russians.

It makes rather less sense for the EU to be quite as hoity-toity as it is being at the moment as between the Ukraine and Russia. or at least not unless it is prepared to say openly that what we're really interested in is protecting the integrity of the Baltic States and Poland. As between the Ukraine and Russia, it's difficult to avoid reaching two conclusions

1. The position of the border between them is a random accident of history, not a natural frontier either geographically or ethnically. It is not even entirely clear how far a self-aware Ukrainian identity existed before 1918. And

2. As regards corruption, democracy, oligarchs etc. there's little to choose between them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Yes, I agree, they do.

This article has some interesting thoughts, although is a bit pessimistic I think. (The author is also flogging his new book).

I think in the end, face saving deals will me made as people will think they are better together....

If you don't mind my saying it, that's rather a silly article. It is saying that the problems of the Eurozone are the Germans' fault for being too successful, for doing too much exporting. He wouldn't say that his own country exercise some sort of self-denying export ordinance. Why should he expect anyone else do so?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you don't mind my saying it, that's rather a silly article. It is saying that the problems of the Eurozone are the Germans' fault for being too successful, for doing too much exporting.

No. This is once again one of those situations where finance at the level of a country is different from that of a household. The German policy is that they want to be a net exporter to the rest of the EU. In normal situations this would lead to currencies adjusting to account for this, of course with the Euro there is nothing to adjust. [Furthermore if the Germans position really was 'everyone has to become like them' then it's nonsensical, as everyone in the EU can't simultaneously be a net exporter to the rest of the EU]. Absent floating currencies you would need fiscal transfers (which the debt has the potential to become in all but name).

The flip side of southern european debt is that a large amount of it has financed German economic growth over the last decade. The Troika has chosen to make various demands of the Greeks - though telling them to reduce their defence spending has been conspicuous by its absence - perhaps not surprisingly one of the larger purchases consisted of new German submarines.

quote:

He wouldn't say that his own country exercise some sort of self-denying export ordinance. Why should he expect anyone else do so?

Well, back in the 80s, the Japanese balance of trade was regularly a feature of international diplomacy.

[ 01. February 2015, 19:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If you don't mind my saying it, that's rather a silly article. It is saying that the problems of the Eurozone are the Germans' fault for being too successful, for doing too much exporting.
No. This is once again one of those situations where finance at the level of a country is different from that of a household. The German policy is that they want to be a net exporter to the rest of the EU. In normal situations this would lead to currencies adjusting to account for this, of course with the Euro there is nothing to adjust. [Furthermore if the Germans position really was 'everyone has to become like them' then it's nonsensical, as everyone in the EU can't simultaneously be a net exporter to the rest of the EU]. Absent floating currencies you would need fiscal transfers (which the debt has the potential to become in all but name).

The flip side of southern european debt is that a large amount of it has financed German economic growth over the last decade. The Troika has chosen to make various demands of the Greeks - though telling them to reduce their defence spending has been conspicuous by its absence - perhaps not surprisingly one of the larger purchases consisted of new German submarines.

quote:

He wouldn't say that his own country exercise some sort of self-denying export ordinance. Why should he expect anyone else do so?
Well, back in the 80s, the Japanese balance of trade was regularly a feature of international diplomacy.

Yes, that's why I don't think the article is daft. Furthermore, the economic structure of the Euro, going back to its foundations in the ERM (and the relative values of currencies enshrined therein) is designed to facilitate that.

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :

Apparently now Greece might be asking for money from some other sources if they can't renegotiate their existing deal: link
Do they really think anyone's going to see them as credit worthy at this point?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

When it comes to the Greek debt/bailout funds its been obvious from before the election where Syriza might look (see my post on 1 February): Russia.

Russia have a problem that even its ultra patriotic population is beginning to tire of the loss of favourite goods due to EU sanctions - most specifically they miss soft fruit, such as peaches, and some dairy products.

Greece, meanwhile, has an abundance of both which they feel they could (should?) be getting better prices for.

The solution being touted around Syntagma Square is that Greek goods could be exchanged for Russian oil and gas: both parties get what they want AND cock a snook at Mrs Merkel.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0