|
The circumstances being him not having the moral courage to lead his country out of the union and instead, immediately after quitting setting up an organisation to change European politics? The diem25 manifesto is so lazy quote:Our immediate priority is (A) full transparency in decision-making (e.g. live-streaming of European Council, Ecofin and Eurogroup meetings, full disclosure of trade negotiation documents, publication of ECB minutes etc.) and (B) the urgent redeployment of existing EU institutions in the pursuit of innovative policies that genuinely address the crises of debt, banking, inadequate investment, rising poverty and migration. Good Job!
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:The circumstances being him not having the moral courage to lead his country out of the union and instead, immediately after quitting setting up an organisation to change European politics? Did you miss the part where Varoufakis was finance minister under Tsipras instead of Supreme Leader?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Yanis Varoufakis was a finance minister, not the prime minister, staying or leaving the EU wasn't in his hands in the first place. Do you know what different ministerial positions are and what they mean? Also, the guy was never a proponent of leaving the EU in the first place, even today he's arguing for staying in the EU and is taking action with what limited capacity he has to try and change the debate. What's wrong with resigning from your post when you cannot fulfill the promises and duties that got you into your office in the first place? He went and did his best, found out that the direction of events was going to put him in a position where he will compromise his own promises, beliefs and principles and quit, why not? Where is the honor of doing the 'hard work of governance' if you cannot deliver the things the people who voted you into office asked you to do? staying in office to do the 'hard work of governance' it sounds like a cheap excuse made by authoritarians and failed politicians when confronted with their unpopular policies and broken promises. I'm really curious about why you despise the man so deeply, it's clear that he hit a nerve with you so much that him writing articles and publishing books is a bad thing to you and I'm really curious where the root of this is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
He's another Greek in a long line of Greek politicians that looted the country while pretending to be a leftist and as a true leftist I take offence at that? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Please clear up why Varoufakis not launching a coup d'etat makes him a lazy person that quit because governing is too hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
For the love of God I didn't want to say anything but I want this making GBS threads spree to end, check his rap sheet, he's a serial troll. Report and move on. If Britain isn't the first to leave the EU, which country do you think will be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Greece
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:If Britain isn't the first to leave the EU, which country do you think will be? I could see it being Greece is the EU and IMF maintain a hardline stance, but I could also see countries like Poland or Hungary going too far right to handle being in the EU (though the EU would probably just dip to the right itself instead). Comedy option: AfD wins the next German election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Nobody ever leaves the eu,its our very own hotel California.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I could see it being Greece is the EU and IMF maintain a hardline stance, but I could also see countries like Poland or Hungary going too far right to handle being in the EU (though the EU would probably just dip to the right itself instead). Comedy option: AfD wins the next German election. Yeah to me it's a toss-up between Hungary, Poland or Greece. The former two for going off the deep end or Greece for going deep into the red.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
To be fair to Varoufakis, while he is a self-aggrandizing idiot who believes that he alone knows how to lead Greece/Europe/the world into a new Golden Age of prosperity and peace, I don't think he is doing it for self enrichment like most other people in SYRIZA nor do I believe that he quit his job as Finance Minister because he was lazy or anything like that. To some degree his stance on the issue of Greek debt is at least intellectually honest, in contrast to Tsipras, the European Commission and to some degrees even Angela Merkel, who all agree to made up numbers and reforms that are never going to get implemented instead of facing reality and once and for all solving the issue. But let's talk about Varoufakis, who has some obvious errors in his argumentation, not to mention his absurd need to compare the EU to a military dictatorship and his subtle link between Schäuble and the Nazis, because it's important to point out that the current Bundesfinanzministerium is housed in the building Göring's Luftwaffeministerium was for some reason, I guess to make the Brits, who are obsessed with all things Nazi, hate Schäuble a bit more. His biggest mistake is that he doesn't understand that contracts between nations can't change just because one government changed. If we would accept Varoufakis' interpretation of international treaties, the EU would simply stop to exist, because every time a government changes (happens quite often in the EU, given that it consists of 28 countries) every treaty would have to be renegotiated. Furthermore he doesn't understand how diplomacy works, that there is a need for confidentiality in diplomatic negotiations and he seems to not understand that most western countries follow the principle of separation of powers, which is why the German Bundesregierung (the executive) can not interfere with German courts (the legislative), but maybe that is different in Greece. tl;dr: Varoufakis is a clown, but not because he wants to get rich or is lazy. Tesseraction posted:Yeah to me it's a toss-up between Hungary, Poland or Greece. The former two for going off the deep end or Greece for going deep into the red. No. There is literally no chance that either Poland or Hungary are going to leave the EU and not take more of it's sweet, sweet cash. The most likely candidate to behind Britain is probably France if the FN every get in power. If Greece leaves they only leave the Eurozone, not the EU.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Diem25 is quite contradictory in places - it simultaneously calls for centralisation and localisation. It reads like something trying to tick too many boxes/satisfy too many competing constituents. That said, his Guardian piece was actually pretty good. I especially liked his concise articulation of the difference between Sovereignty and Power in the context of the current debate - I frequent several pro-European Social Democratic journals, and most of the academic contributors have already decided that sovereignty at the national level is basically impossible, and that sovereignty can therefore only be achieved through greater integration at the European level. In reality however, they are not talking about sovereignty, but power... I have real issue with this presumption, as it by default closes off all anti-integration/pro-subsidiarity debate (reminds me of 'there is no alternative'). Its also bizarre, as Greece amply demonstrates (how can Greece be said to be sovereign within the European framework when the will of its people is so easily ignored?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 16:29
|
|
Tigey posted:Diem25 is quite contradictory in places - it simultaneously calls for centralisation and localisation. It reads like something trying to tick too many boxes/satisfy too many competing constituents. Why don't people get it? The Greek people are sovereign but if their government unilaterally nullifies treaties, they have to live with the consequences and they can't turn water into wine by popular vote. You see it with the British people, where they now can either decide to stick to the treaties or quit the EU, Greece has the same options.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why don't people get it? The Greek people are sovereign but if their government unilaterally nullifies treaties, they have to live with the consequences and they can't turn water into wine by popular vote. You see it with the British people, where they now can either decide to stick to the treaties or quit the EU, Greece has the same options. You mean like how France is always following the 3% rule? Because they don't want to get kicked out? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Why don't people get it? The Greek people are sovereign but if their government unilaterally nullifies treaties, they have to live with the consequences and they can't turn water into wine by popular vote. You see it with the British people, where they now can either decide to stick to the treaties or quit the EU, Greece has the same options. I made a big effort post but Firefox crashed and deleted the whole drat thing. The following is a lazy, partial and half-remembered replacement. Basically - some pro-European Social Democrat politicians/commentators make arguments that given changes in the international economic and geopolitical environment over the past 20 years, the nation state (except in cases like the US, China) is now irrelevant, and the only way for nations to maintain their sovereignty is to pool it and be part of a regional bloc such as the EU, ASEAN etc, making them more able to resist external influences. This argument is frequently employed to respond to criticism of the EU that are made on the grounds of sovereignty, by arguing that it does not weaken members' sovereignty, but instead strengthens it, by providing the members with greater influence/power on the global stage. Its basically a method of shutting down/batting away sovereignty-related criticism of the EU. The problem is that it misunderstands what sovereignty actually is - the ability of the legitimate political authorities within a country/region to take decisions without being subject to direct external interference. Given the lack of a pan-European Demos/political identity (as well as the poor state of EU institutions), legitimacy is still primarily vested in national governments, therefore sovereignty in most cases relates to the ability of national governments to take decisions free from external interference. Instead they are referring to power - the ability to impose such decisions. This is a key difference between sovereignty and power. As Varoufakis notes - Iceland is sovereign - it is perfectly free to arrive at whatever decisions it wants to without being subject to external interference. However, Iceland is pretty small and insignificant, so it faces practical constraints on its power to impose said decisions both within and outside its borders. What is overlooked by this argument, is that intra-EU influences exist and can diminish sovereignty - the process of national decision making. Greece's current situation has given greater leverage to Eurozone institutions. Now, it is not a violation of Greek sovereignty to negotiate various conditions as a prerequisite for further support/bailouts, with the alternative being Grexit. However, it is a violation of Greek sovereignty to interfere in internal decision making processes, such as specifying the exact nature of those cuts, penetrating decision making processes by emplacing officials within institutions, dictating Greek economic policy, etc. Attempting to influence the outcomes of its elections by issuing various public statements is also another violation. This is one of the reasons I reject the assertion that national sovereignty can only be preserved within the framework of the EU - as it routinely violates it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Tigey posted:Now, it is not a violation of Greek sovereignty to negotiate various conditions as a prerequisite for further support/bailouts, with the alternative being Grexit. However, it is a violation of Greek sovereignty to interfere in internal decision making processes, such as specifying the exact nature of those cuts, penetrating decision making processes by emplacing officials within institutions, dictating Greek economic policy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:11
|
|
Tigey posted:I made a big effort post but Firefox crashed and deleted the whole drat thing. The following is a lazy, partial and half-remembered replacement. All member states still have perfect sovereignty because they are free to invoke article 50, which will free them from the shackles of the EU. They will however have to live with the consequences of that decision. If they want to stay in the EU, they will have to play by the rules of the EU.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
I just don't know if Greece can handle those internal issues on its own anymore past its huge corruption problems. And I say this as a citizen of another very corrupt EU state, that pretends not to be and can only get away with it for now because it's vastly moreso insignificant than Greece. Other than apply pressure from the outside, is there any way the EU can actually aid Greece by this point without that aid being utterly embezzled/subverted? Is it possible to avoid this, without restructuring those internal issues that only Greece could (if it is to maintain sovereignty by not allowing the EU to dictate that from the outside)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:All member states still have perfect sovereignty because they are free to invoke article 50, which will free them from the shackles of the EU. They will however have to live with the consequences of that decision. If they want to stay in the EU, they will have to play by the rules of the EU. Once again, no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:This seems like a bizarre position to me - you're apparently saying that conditionality is OK as long as it's vague; it's fine for the EU to say "you must run a surplus" or even "you must run a surplus of 1.5%", but not "you must run a surplus of 1.5% and you must achieve it in part by reforming your pension system." Why? Meh, yeah that was badly worded - didn't spend as much time writing it the second time round and merged a couple of points together. For the purposes of this argument at least, the specific details of what reforms are involved are irrelevant - what matters is that Greece is able to freely agree to those reforms itself without interference in its decision making. The point I was trying to make was that yes, as part of any negotiation process there will inevitably be a degree of give and take on both sides: this is not a violation of sovereignty in and of itself. Indeed, as, Greece wanted external financing, it would have to offer some kind of concessions to the Troika if it wanted to be taken seriously: Varoufakis cited a package of reform proposals that he put forward: these were no doubt outrageously ambitious and overreaching, but they nonetheless at least represented a starting point from Greece's perspective (which it would no doubt gradually negotiate down from as the discussions progressed). This package represented its starting negotiating position - arrived at by via legitimate decision making processes. What happened? Did the Troika consider these proposals? Did it accept or reject them? No, it did allow them to even be tabled, and instead applied direct political pressure behind the scenes to Tspiras to retract/repress those proposals. This constitutes direct interference in the decision making processes of a sovereign state. That is the central point I was making
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 20:51
|
|
Tigey posted:Meh, yeah that was badly worded - didn't spend as much time writing it the second time round and merged a couple of points together. The Troika allowed the Greeks to table all the reform proposals they wanted (you might not remember it, but the February agreement explicitly called for the Greeks to make proposals, one of them was to turn tourists into Google glasses wearing VAT spies) but they had to be in line with the agreement the Hellenic Republic had already agreed to and they had to be presented according to the processes of the Eurogroup, which meant that they would have to be discussed with the Troika, who then give their assessment to the Eurogroup, which decides whether to accept the proposal. Varoufakis, probably because he thinks of himself as the best and brightest, doesn't understand that the decisions and communiques on this level are already prepared by underlings before the actual meeting happens, simply because everything else would not be feasible. Maybe he has some romantic notion that the Eurogroup should work like the Roman forum or the Athenian equivalent, where brilliant orators sway the decisions through their willpower and excellence alone.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Friends, Europeans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Socialism, not to praise it. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Socialism. The noble Schäuble Hath told you Socialism was irresponsible: If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:24
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Friends, Europeans, countrymen, lend me your ears; Methinks there is much reason in his sayings.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:Once again, no. a currency union of countries with a huge range of income levels and a huge range of structural characteristics is a terrible idea and always will be
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Tigey posted:What is overlooked by this argument, is that intra-EU influences exist and can diminish sovereignty - the process of national decision making. Greece's current situation has given greater leverage to Eurozone institutions. Now, it is not a violation of Greek sovereignty to negotiate various conditions as a prerequisite for further support/bailouts, with the alternative being Grexit. However, it is a violation of Greek sovereignty to interfere in internal decision making processes, such as specifying the exact nature of those cuts, penetrating decision making processes by emplacing officials within institutions, dictating Greek economic policy, etc. Attempting to influence the outcomes of its elections by issuing various public statements is also another violation. What I'm wondering though is how much this is really an argument about the EU. The demands that are being made of Greece are, after all, not that different from the kinds of reforms implemented in decades past in any number of countries as part of 'structural adjustment programmes' imposed by the IMF as a condition for funding. It just so happened though that the other EU member states and the ECB also became lenders to Greece rather than just the IMF. Though we now have a framework of EU governance of member state fiscal and economic policies, it is in most cases rather toothless, with Greece being an exception rather than a rule (well, Greece and the other crisis countries). You could make a case that running up unsustainable debts is far more damaging to your sovereignty than being an EU member per se.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Hey brits don't be jerks and don't leave the goddamn EU just as I am finally going to move over there to work, it's not like I'm stealing your jobs, you have way too much demand in that area, there's way more than enough jobs for everybody. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
So, any idea how the Dutch vote is going? As I understand it's non-binding, but a No would still be a mess that will surely make Putin very, very happy. Maybe the best option of nobody shows up so that it's not considered valid?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Turnout in the bigger cities was around 12% by 2 pm, though lower than that in Amsterdam. Turnout needs to reach 30% for the referendum to be valid, so whether that will be reached is a crap shoot at this point. I suppose the best thing would be if that goal wasn't met (I'm still going to vote though), since the 'No'-vote has consistently led in the polls over the last few months, and very little of that is based on factual and reasoned arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of the association treaty ). If the government were to adopt a 'No' on the basis of the referendum it's going to be another diplomatic disaster for the Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:But let's talk about Varoufakis, who has some obvious errors in his argumentation, not to mention his absurd need to compare the EU to a military dictatorship and his subtle link between Schäuble and the Nazis, because it's important to point out that the current Bundesfinanzministerium is housed in the building Göring's Luftwaffeministerium was for some reason, I guess to make the Brits, who are obsessed with all things Nazi, hate Schäuble a bit more. I'm not surprised that you are textually blind. His main thesis is that even large institutions can change dramatically. The point of his story about his childhood is to contrast the role Germany played back then with the role Germany plays today. What a change! So when he brings up how this building used to have a very different function, is it to illustrate how a) Germans bad because Nazi's b) things really can change You are like Schauble in his story of his visit in that you are unable to imagine how fondly this guy used to think of Germany and Germans. Except unlike Schauble, he just spent a couple of pages explaining to you in detail all about the how and why of it. You are loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Methinks there is much reason in his sayings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I'm not surprised that you are textually blind. His main thesis is that even large institutions can change dramatically. The point of his story about his childhood is to contrast the role Germany played back then with the role Germany plays today. What a change! So when he brings up how this building used to have a very different function, is it to illustrate how Personal feelings don't matter (except it turns out governments still consist of people, and all people as a rule are stupid emotional idiots who can barely tie their own shoelaces when worked up over something).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
A Buttery Pastry posted:Whose? EU Mark Antony
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:EU Mark Antony Mark Antony crashed and burned spectacularly though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:EU Mark Antony blowfish posted:Mark Antony crashed and burned spectacularly though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:Turnout in the bigger cities was around 12% by 2 pm, though lower than that in Amsterdam. Turnout needs to reach 30% for the referendum to be valid, so whether that will be reached is a crap shoot at this point. I suppose the best thing would be if that goal wasn't met (I'm still going to vote though), since the 'No'-vote has consistently led in the polls over the last few months, and very little of that is based on factual and reasoned arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of the association treaty ). If the government were to adopt a 'No' on the basis of the referendum it's going to be another diplomatic disaster for the Netherlands. I can totally imagine the people and their reasons for voting No and the clusterfuck that could result from it, though, so hopefully it won't come to that one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Interesting, there could've easily been as many people going to vote after work, which would put it very close to 30%. Or maybe everyone who wanted to vote already did. Apparently there are no results yet as far as I can tell, but there's this: "59% of eligible Dutch voters in Tokyo support treaty while 41% were against" which is nice but probably poorly representative of the home population, but who knows. First exitpoll says 29% turnout, with a margin of +/- 3%. The No vote got 64%, Yes got 36%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Varoufakis posted:One may retort that the European Union’s democratic credentials are beyond reproach. The European Council comprises heads of governments, while Ecofin and the Eurogroup are the councils of finance ministers (of the whole EU and of the eurozone respectively). All these representatives are, of course, democratically elected. No, they aren't. Heads of government (aka Prime Ministers) are elected in many EU countries, but not in all of them, and I've never heard that non-prime ministers, such as finance ministers, were elected anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:First exitpoll says 29% turnout, with a margin of +/- 3%. The No vote got 64%, Yes got 36%. Adjusted to 32% +- 3% so the 30% will probably just be reached.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:No, they aren't. I think he's referring to them being elected to their country's parliament, as opposed to someone hand-picked by the government at random. Basically if they are in the party voted into power that counts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think he's referring to them being elected to their country's parliament, as opposed to someone hand-picked by the government at random. That's not a given either. Take a look at this fellow, look in his biography how many times he has been elected. No, it's not an omission on Wikipedia's part. When the Prime Minister isn't elected directly, the person is appointed from the ranks of the majority party, sure; but then you don't have any requirement at the European level that individual ministers should be elected officials. (In fact, such a provision would not necessarily be a good idea, as it'd either require them to assume dual office as minister and representative, or to force anticipated elections in their constituency to replace them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:07
|
|