Euro crisis

delft

Brigadier
We are, I suppose, all, or nearly all, amazed/horrified by the crisis about the financial position of Greece and the possible consequences for other European countries, the European Union, other countries, &ct. Here is the first article I found that mentions its relevance to the functioning of democracy in Europe:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Financial crisis: Eurocrats are terrified of democracy

Greece’s prime minister George Papandreou is in the doghouse only because he dared to offer voters a choice.

By Daniel Hannan

Shall I tell you the truly terrifying thing about the EU? It’s not the absence of democracy in Brussels, or the ease with which Eurocrats swat aside referendum results. It’s the way in which the internal democracy of the member states is subverted in order to sustain the requirements of membership.
George Papandreou, the luckless Greek leader, is the latest politician to find himself being chewed up because he stands in the way of the Brussels machine. On Monday afternoon, Papandreou announced a referendum on whether to accept the EU’s bail-out terms. He had evidently had enough of the antics of the opposition party, New Democracy, which kept insisting that Greece remain in the euro, while opposing all the austerity measures necessary to that end – an outrageous stance given that New Democracy ran up the deficit in the first place. Papandreou hoped to force his opponents off the fence: in favour of the spending cuts or against euro membership. Perhaps he also hoped to put pressure on the EU to offer more generous terms.
I wish I could convey the sheer horror that his proposal provoked in Brussels. The first rule of the Eurocracy is “no referendums”. Brussels functionaries believe that their work is too important to be subject to the prejudices of hoi polloi (for once, the Greek phrase seems apposite). Referendums are always seen as irresponsible; but, at a time when the euro is teetering on the brink, Papandreou’s proposal was seen as an act of ingratitude bordering on treason.
Across the palaces and chanceries of the continent, Euro-elites closed ranks. Nicolas Sarkozy’s spokesman described Papandreou’s announcement as “irrational and dangerous”, Angela Merkel’s called it “irritating”, Silvio Berlusconi’s “negative”. Such phrases, in the mouths of government officials, suggest purple, choking rage.
The Athens establishment lined up with them. Antonis Samaras, the leader of New Democracy, vowed – with splendid disregard for his party’s name – to prevent a referendum “at all costs”. Constantine Michalos, the president of the Athens Chamber of Commerce, called the proposal “an act of political blackmail”. All these insults were provoked by the suggestion that people be allowed to determine their future through the ballot box.

Euro-enthusiasts in Brussels and in Athens are ready to bring down an elected government rather than allow a referendum. Yet the funny thing is that Papandreou is a Euro-enthusiast. He fervently wants to remain in the euro, and had been planning to campaign for a Yes vote. His sin, in the eyes of Brussels, was not to hold the wrong opinions, but to be too keen on democracy. Leninists had a term for people who, while they might be committed Bolsheviks, none the less behaved in a way which endangered the movement. They were called “objectively counter-revolutionary”. Poor Papandreou finds himself in this category.
Nor is he the first. When it became clear that Ireland was to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Bertie Ahern was required to fall on his sword lest the corruption allegations seeping about him tainted the Europhile cause. He was replaced by Brian Cowen, the former Europe minister, who went on to lose the referendum anyway. Cowen then refused to accept the verdict, siding openly with Brussels against his own countrymen. Result? Fianna Fáil, the party which had won the most votes at every election since 1932, was extirpated.
Borrowing a phrase from C S Lewis, I think of this phenomenon as the EU’s “hideous strength”. Brussels has a bizarre power to make politicians break their words, split their parties and betray their voters so as to keep the project going. Again and again, it makes good men do bad things.
Think of the way all three British party leaders whipped their MPs against an EU referendum proposal last week – despite the fact that two thirds of the country wanted such a vote, and despite the fact that all three parties were promising referendums on Europe in the last Parliament. Think of the way Margaret Thatcher was ousted, by a combination of Tory Europhiles and Continental leaders, when she made clear her opposition to Jacques Delors’s plans for Euro-federalism.
One of Papandreou’s supporters, a socialist MEP called Anni Podimata, argued that a referendum would bring catharsis. It’s a good metaphor. Catharsis is the purification and emotional renewal that comes at the end of a Greek tragedy. Greece has been through the hubris – the boom years, when the markets pretended that Greek and German debt were interchangeable – and is now suffering the nemesis, but the catharsis has been artificially stayed. Greece won’t begin to grow again until it leaves the euro, writes off its debts and prices itself into the markets.
Eurocrats are prepared to pay any price rather than admit that the single currency was a mistake – or, more precisely, to expect their peoples to pay, since EU officials are exempt from national taxation. The peripheral countries are to suffer poverty, unemployment and emigration, the core countries perpetual tax rises, so that supporters of the euro can save face.
It’s chilling to write these words, but EU leaders are evidently prepared to vitiate Greek democracy and wreck the Greek economy rather than allow the euro to break apart. Yet even if they succeed in Greece, they may find that their efforts are for nothing. Italian bond spreads yesterday were back at the level that usually triggers bail-outs. We are about to see quite how far the Brussels apparat will go in defence of its privileges.

Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South East England

There is probably little else I agree about with Mr. Hannan, but the fact that democracy is seen as a threat to the financial system is frightening. I hope others will have more enjoyable things to say.
 

solarz

Brigadier
There is probably little else I agree about with Mr. Hannan, but the fact that democracy is seen as a threat to the financial system is frightening. I hope others will have more enjoyable things to say.

I don't think it's frightening at all. I think it's simple reality. Too many people have been blinded by the economic success of the United States and the supposed democracy of the British Empire.

To call 19th century UK "democratic" is laughable to everyone except the West. What kind of democracy goes to war over the right to sell opium?

The economic success of the US was fueled by World War 2. On a planet where almost every nation had been wrecked by warfare, the United States emerged not only as a victor (and thus due the spoils of war), but also as one of the few nations that never saw fighting within its own borders, had a stable government, and a large territory and population base. In other words, it had every advantage to become the dominant power in the world. Compared to those factors, I would say their form of government, democracy, counted for very little in their success.

No corporation in the world is run by democracy. Executives and Managers are appointed, not elected. Decisions are made not by polling the employees, but behind closed doors among a select few. This is the kind of "governance" and decision-making process that is keeping the economic engine running.

Why then, would it be a good thing to allow people to make decisions about things that they don't even understand?
 

Engineer

Major
Why then, would it be a good thing to allow people to make decisions about things that they don't even understand?

They are not making decisions; they are given the illusion of being able to make decisions, in the form of voting another person to run things that he/she may not understand. Tell me about people making decision when you get to choose where your tax dollars go when you do your taxes.

There is a reason why there isn't an election to vote random yahoos to run your local nuclear powerplant, yet some people think this is a good idea when running a country.
 

solarz

Brigadier
They are not making decisions; they are given the illusion of being able to make decisions, in the form of voting another person to run things that he/she may not understand. Tell me about people making decision when you get to choose where your tax dollars go when you do your taxes.

There is a reason why there isn't an election to vote random yahoos to run your local nuclear powerplant, yet some people think this is a good idea when running a country.

The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. In a democracy, people don't get to make the decisions themselves. Instead, they invariably vote for those people who are dwelling in the same circles over and over. They get the illusions of "Left vs Right" so they think their choice matters more than they actually do.

However, the politicians themselves have to watch out for the kind of policy they can make, and that's what's really crippling in a democracy. Many politicians are unwilling to make tough-but-healthy decisions because they fear they will lose votes from people who don't (and don't want to) understand the importance of those policies.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
This thread shall stand as long as it remains civil in nature.

bd popeye super moderator
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
la1025pin05.jpg



Well what do you expect with the shambolic way the EU is handling their debt crisis ?

" photo of Members of the EU Parliament debating the state of play concerning the financial crisis." Strasbourg France last Week.24 October (Photo from Los Angeles Times
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
The Euro crisis exposes massive fundamental weaknesses in the west's two core pillars of belief, democracy and capitalism.

The EU is a democracy of nations at its most basic and fundamental level, and that lack of central leadership and coherent policy has become a horror show about how NOT to handle a crisis. This failure in leadership has been magnified and distorted by the free market westerns claim can do no wrong, to such an extent that irrational fear and blind panic are becoming self-fulfilling prophecies and feeding the crisis until it is threatening perfectly sound economies and risking total meltdown of the Euro.

The EU might cobble together a fix to tide them over this crisis, but another will just arise in its place in time because the core problems will never be addressed. Hell, as Bladerunner's image amply demonstrates, EU leaders are still not taking this current crisis as seriously as they should be, probably because they have such blind faith in democracy and free markets that deep down, most of them cannot really believe that things could really go horribly wrong because they are democratic and capitalist, so as good faithful believers, a solution will present itself through the magic of democracy and capitalism.

Unless the EU leaders collectively remove heads from butts and take sweeping changes to the way the EU is run, sooner or later, a crisis so big will develop that no amount of half-measures and symptom curing can help, and the whole thing will come crashing down, taking much of the world economy with it.

Perhaps only then will the world accept that democracy isn't perfect and that naked greed (ie capitalism) cannot be trusted to run the world economy for the benefit of the majority.

China knows this, that is why they are not interested in riding in with a truck load of money to save the Europeans - because that will not solve the problems, only delay when they will come to a head.

Besides, I see China waiting for either this crisis to worsen greatly more or a more serious one to develop before they are ready to actually whip out the cheque book, as then China would be able to get some serious concessions and useful terms out of it. Such as the abolishing of the EU arms embargo, but more significantly, removing blocks and restrictions on joint research and co-operations in all scientific fields.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Let those EU members that talk about the dangers of having China involved scare the others. That way China doesn't have to risk its money while at the same time they can't blame China for not helping. So please, EU, make a big stink about not involving the Chinese so you don't forget when you start looking for scapegoat when it all falls apart on you.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Thing is, China isn't even interested in getting involved yet anyways. It is some Euros who are looking hungrily at China's bank account and thinking China will bail them out for 'goodwill'. What ridiculous wishful thinking that China would pile billions in to cover Euro's butt for a condescending pat on the head. :rolleyes:

China has made it clear that if it is to lend the EU money, it will be a loan, not a handout, and on purely commercial transaction and that China would want solid assurances that it would get it's money back, with interest.

China will only consider coming in to bail the EU out if the Euro zone is really in seriously trouble that it cannot get out of by itself. However, China will still want assurances that it is not throwing money away, and will demand real, solid concessions and benefits for its largeness. And no, a pat on the head will still not do.
 

Engineer

Major
Would Europe genuinely thank China for the bail out? The most response from Europe would be a self-congratulatory pat on its shoulder for making China a sucker. There is no reason why China should risk its own money for these self-righteous countries in the West.
 
Top