|
Tesseraction posted:The first is partially what's ongoing - the reform of the pension system being a classic example. Second, referencing external pressure makes little sense - do you think Greece is enjoying its economy being in the shitter? That they won't try anything sane that would remove them from that? As to the third, austerity has done nothing in a positive direction to change their ability to service its debt. It is not going to service its debt under the current fiscal system. The problem is the structure of the Eurozone. The nature of the single currency basically removes most of the monetary policy instruments that governments have open to them at the national level. This by default ensures that without massive external financing for Greece, fiscal policy - ie: Austerity - is literally the only option it has (aside from Grexit). Such external financing - either through massive debt forgiveness, or massive sustained structural wealth transfers from the Eurozone core (ie: mainly Germany) is now utterly politically untenable: all political goodwill has been worn out on both sides by the years of back and forth. Its not a matter of Austerity solving Greece's economic woes - it clearly is never going to, except in the minds of the true believers - its a matter of it being the only option in light of the unwillingness of the rest of the Eurozone to pump funds into Greece ad infinitum.
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:The fact that austerity doesn't work is completely irrelevant here. EU's decision to push for cuts likely has more to do with the fact that they have no other option. Agree. Its completely irrelevant that it doesn't work. It is literally the only option open to Greece that is politically possible in its current context. Everything else relies on massive fiscal transfers from the rest of the Eurozone on a scale that is just not going to happen - the political narrative is utterly skewed against solidarity and more toward limiting liability now. The point is now not to save Greece (and its possible this was never the main objective of the Troika/Eurozone creditor countries, etc, except in a partial sense). The point is to limit the liability of the rest of the Eurozone. This is of course monstrous, but serves to demonstrate the utter collapse of solidarity in the EU (as does the refugee crisis).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"This won't cure your cancer, but hell, it won't NOT cure your cancer" The problem is, the Doctor doesn't care, as long as he doesn't catch the cancer. Admittedly, this analogy would be better with an infectious disease, but you have to work with what you have
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I doubt Obama's intervention was unintentional. Cameron probably ASKED for him to say something helpful on it, and the line taken was no doubt agreed well in advance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because many Britons are extremely ill informed about what the EU is, does, and restricts us from doing, as well as being severely misapprehensive of exactly how powerful Britain as an international entity is. I fully agree with this, but I think the rest of your post is overplaying it a bit - I have always been wary of arguments that conflate or explain UK Eurosceptism with nostalgia for the days of Empire. They certainly overlap (especially for that generation), and can feed eachother, but they are not the same. To try to answer Waitwhatno's question - simply put there are frankly no positive narratives about the EU in the UK, only negative ones. The economic, cultural and social benefits which have (in all likelihood) come about from EU membership are simply not associated with/credited to the EU. Instead, the relentlessly hostile media does not highlight the benefits of membership, instead portraying extreme/objectional fringe cases as the norm, creating negative perceptions and ensuring there are literally no popular arguments made for remaining beyond trade/narrow economic interest/power. I see this when talking with European colleagues - positive tropes and perceptions they have about the EU that they take for granted (though many of these have been eroded in recent years, with the Eurozone/refugee crises) are greeted with literal bafflement and bemusement in the UK, and vice versa. EDIT: Given Waithatno didn't seem that familiar with the background I thought I should expand on it by summarising (quickly and very badly) a few examples, most of which are big generalisations: ----------- A common argument made by pro-Europeans, that the EU has been the sole/main guarantor of peace, economic growth and human rights in Europe, from the Cold War to today. In the UK, this argument is treated with literal derision: -NATO is seen as more relevant on defence (I actually have some sympathy with this, as I have always though the claim the EU was primarily responsible for bringing peace to Europe is overreaching massively). -On economic growth, access to the Common Market is genuinely welcomed, but the EU is otherwise generally seen as being harmful to growth (through overregulation and bureaucracy, such as 'bonkers Brussels rules banning bendy bananas', as well as employer unfriendly measures like preventing people from being worked to death for 90+hrs a week, etc). -Human/social rights gains in recent decades are generally not associated with/attributed to the EU. Instead, the main association between the EU and human rights is the perception it is more interested in protecting the rights of 'Hate preachers' and so on, by making unpopular rulings preventing them from being deported. ---------- Similarly, in most of Europe, Schengen and the freedom of movement are seen as founding principles, worth defending and bringing economic and social opportunities to citizens (the fallout from the refugee crisis notwithstanding). In the UK, whilst elites strongly support freedom of movement (for differing reasons on both the left and right), the wider public do not really perceive the benefits to them (ie: such as ease of work travel, cheap holidays to Spain/France, etc). Freedom of movement is instead perceived primarily in terms of enabling mass immigration, allowing hordes of foreigners to come to the UK and take our jerbs/live high on benefits/plunder our women. ----------- Across much of Europe, the 'Dream' of European integration still has emotional appeal (although this has been severely dented in recent years with the Eurozone and refugee crises). Integration is seen as a good in and of itself, rather than just a means to an end. In Eastern Europe, joining the EU is seen as a sign of modernity and aspiration - an exclusive club of 'advanced' nations. In the UK, the 'Dream' of integration is generally perceived as a nightmare - an attempt to construct a literal Empire and destroy national identities. There is a widespread perception that the UK originally only signed up to join a 'Common Market' (ie: free trade), and that subsequent generations of British and European politicians and bureaucrats have pursued further integration without any mandate to do so, whilst ignoring dissent (such as the French, Dutch and Irish Referendums). There is a perception that even with an opt out from 'Ever Closer Union', the UK will still be fighting constant diplomatic rearguard actions to prevent itself being subject to further integration, etc. ------------ Finally, in most countries (Germany being the biggest exception), the EU is seen as a source of investment and funds. Its easy to support to be supportive of the EU when it is plowing investment/tangible net returns. The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, receiving less than it puts in. This means it is seen as draining wealth from the country, using it to subsidise feckless French farmers and corrupt Eastern European officials (the fact EU accounts have not been signed off for many years is often cited). This means that arguments regarding the economic benefits of EU membership have to take into account trade - which is a lot less tangible and harder to directly attribute to the EU. -------------- TL:DR: People in UK generally perceive the EU in a bad light due to negative narratives constantly spewed by the media, which downplays/ignores the benefits of EU membership (human rights, freedom of movement, growth, etc) instead focussing on generally irrelevant fringe cases, portraying them as the norm rather than the exception. This means that beyond narrow trade/economic interests, there are no popular pro-EU narratives that enjoy widespread acceptance. EDIT: I've generally used the term UK - though the above is of course quite different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than it is for England, for various reasons. Tigey fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:except china is actively shooting itself in the foot by refusing to actually hire Africans to do the labour they need, they import Chinese laborours, which means that long time friendship and sense of benefits for Africans from Chinese investments means jack poo poo. The reason why America has allies who are somewhat reliable is that they've made those economies buy into their system and they hire from the locals to do their work. Indeed. It also eliminates the prospect of using these investment projects as tools for dispensing patronage. By only using imported labour, China misses out on the opportunity to build up a large pool of national workers/managers who have been trained/employed by China, and who will be very favourably disposed toward it in future (a number of who may eventually end up in government). Similarly, they are missing out on the opportunity to curry favour with government officials by providing opportunities and cushy middle-management positions for their friends and families. Its a penny-wise/pound-foolish approach: China isn't effectively using its soft power to its full extent yet. Western donors have got this nailed down - running countless training workshops (often with generous per diem allowances), and educational opportunities/cushy postings in international organisations for officials, or funding astroturf NGOs to employ their friends/families, etc. Less cynically though, as Tesseraction says, anything that provides much needed infrastructure investment is welcome, particularly given that traditional donors have heavily moved away from this area in recent decades.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The Disgraced Dr. Liam Fox MP and David Davis are ablative ministers that can be fired for being corrupt/inept and disloyal at any time if the public mood on Brexit changes, and the press will be like "oh yeah obviously". BoJo will probably do Okay as foreign minister when the cameras are off him and he isn't pretending to be a churchillian moron for domestic consumption. Boris also has the weight of the Foreign Office propping him up - despite the erosion of the civil service in recent years (and the post-Brexit clusterfuck) its still a highly competent and professional foreign service with highly skilled personnel and extensive institutional knowledge. Unless he personally fucks up catastrophically - he will probably be fine. Davis and Fox both head newly established government departments - light on staff, expertise and institutional structures, and with confusing cross-cutting departmental mandates. They are eminently expendable and have almost certainly been set up for a fall. Davis almost certauinly realises this, but I suspect Fox is too dense to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 2, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
With a French veto thats unlikely
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 19:09
|
|