The Farce Goes On

[scottycelt]

I don't get this weird idea that the EU is somehow responsible for the rise of fascism and communism in Greece ... in fact I find it wholly bizarre.

Of course countries in the EU are suffering economic problems at present but these problems are to do with the countries membership of the Euro and not the EU. The two shouldn't be confused in exactly the same was as some here with strong eorosceptic views still appear to confuse the ECHR with the EU. All those countries which are part of the Euro will have to come to some sort of deal to sort out the mess and ease thre path of Greece, Portugal and Spain as far as is practically possible. Eventual full fiscal union is the obvious way forward but that can only be long term. Samaras seems confident that the Greek economy will make a 'comeback' and he may well be right. Fascist and Communist groups have forever exploited people's genuine fears and worries. The danger as far as I can see is not that they will succeed but that there could be another army generals coup if things get too far out of hand ... that in itself would be incompatible with EU membership and would thus involve the EU in a much more direct way.

Frankly. the Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal in the great scheme of things and the past award to Obama was I suggest much more eyebrow-raising than the current one. The prize is awarded to those individuals who strive for peace and the same applies to groups and organisations.

Apart from the UN what other political organisation is more openly striving for and sponsoring co-operation and peace between separate nation states under its umbrella than the EU?

[aeolium]

Of course countries in the EU are suffering economic problems at present but these problems are to do with the countries membership of the Euro and not the EU. The two shouldn't be confused in exactly the same was as some here with strong eorosceptic views still appear to confuse the ECHR with the EU. All those countries which are part of the Euro will have to come to some sort of deal to sort out the mess and ease thre path of Greece, Portugal and Spain as far as is practically possible.

I don't believe I am confusing the eurozone and the EU at all, although surely the eurozone is a constituent part of the EU which was responsible for introducing the single currency. I am talking about the austerity measures which are being required by the troika of IMF, EU and European Central Bank of certain countries within the eurozone in order for further tranches of financial aid to be provided to them to prevent them going bankrupt and defaulting on their debts. These are the measures which are having such a devastating effect, particularly in Greece. I think it's pretty clear that there is a direct correlation between the imposition of these measures and the increasing support for nationalist, xenophobic parties, especially given what we know from earlier historical examples of the association between austerity measures and the growth of such parties.

[teamsaint]

I would argue that, particularly for UK it is a propitious moment to raise the spectre of WWII and why the EU was set up because there is a goodly chunk, the chunk which probably most wants to leave EU, who don't have the historical perspective.

The EU is corrupt and costly, but no more so that most bureacracies of its scale, but its achievement of relative peace for so long has been worth every euro, in my view

It is , of course, worth paying a price for peace.
Going back a long way in the thread, though, my worry is that we have exported our wars....and arms dealings......
Hard to unravel the benefits and negafits I guess.

[vinteuil]

the benefits and negafits I guess.

'negafits' I have to say is new to me

If you don't like disbenefits ( and I certainly don't... ) might not 'malefits' be a better word formation?

[french frank]

Here is last night's Newsnight, with the leading item being a report by Paul Mason from Greece (starts about 2 minutes in). In it he mentions that a recent poll is giving the neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn 14% of support among the electorate. This for a party which AFAIK did not even contest the 2009 elections and polled 7% in the 2012 elections. There may be some sinister parallel with the growth of the Nazi party in the late 1920s and especially after the Great Depression when austerity policies were also applied: the Nazi party went from 2.6% of the vote in 1928 to 18.3% in 1930 and 37.3% in 1932. At that time also, the Communist party polled strongly with 13.1% of the vote in 1930 (compare with the rise of Syriza in Greece). It does seem as though the policies being imposed by the troika are not only bringing Greek society close to civil war or revolution but also polarising it between extremes.

I think a 'What if?' is inescapable. If Greece were neither in the eurozone nor the EU, it is hard to see how such a weak economy could have escaped the effects of the global economic crisis. Can one evaluate whether in the longer term its time in the eurozone/EU has exacerbated the situation beyond what it would suffer anyway - or whether the results in terms of civil disorder and extremism would have been similar?

Greece can't be compared in power and political importance with Nazi Germany. What would the effects of civil meltdown in Greece be? - would it precipitate a breakdown of the EU or would the EU as a 'force for peace' actually come into its own?

[Serial_Apologist]

'negafits' I have to say is new to me

If you don't like disbenefits ( and I certainly don't... ) might not 'malefits' be a better word formation?

Good word, though!

At school we coined the term "negatron" for someone totally lacking in sense of humour or irony awareness - that was back in the early 60s: shame it never caught on.

[amateur51]

Good word, though!

At school we coined the term "negatron" for someone totally lacking in sense of humour or irony awareness - that was back in the early 60s: shame it never caught on.

Nice one, S_A - we used 'boron' long before Gordon was a moron

[Serial_Apologist]

Greece can't be compared in power and political importance with Nazi Germany. What would the effects of civil meltdown in Greece be? - would it precipitate a breakdown of the EU or would the EU as a 'force for peace' actually come into its own?

Either a militaryfascist takeover, as in the late 60s, or a proletarian revolution of the classic Leninist type. If the latter, with soviets, worker militias, nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy without compensation to shareholders, this would of course be in contravention of EU rules governing competition, and Greece would at the very least be chucked out, at the most probably subject to economic blockade. Remember though that the apparatus paid to be built by private capital for production for the satisfaction of "need" could be redirected genuinely to that end, which would be a useful starting point everywhere, people power in the most literal sense.

[french frank]

I think either way the situation for the Greeks would be very grim. What I meant was: would the cement of the EU hold Europe together and contain the trouble within Greece - unlike during WWII when most of Europe was dragged into combat?

[John Shelton]

I think a 'What if?' is inescapable. If Greece were neither in the eurozone nor the EU, it is hard to see how such a weak economy could have escaped the effects of the global economic crisis.

It wouldn't have the level of indebtedness it now has, because it wouldn't have been attractive to lenders, developers, to speculation in general in the way it was. That's not to say Greece wouldn't be a weak or endangered economy, but the proportions would surely be different.

[John Shelton]

On Hungary I think this is an interesting article http://www.fairobserver.com/article/...at-and-why-now

It is interesting that the EC is making a clear separation between the fiscal issue and the issue involving human rights in Hungary. The EC and Orbán’s government have been at loggerheads regarding Hungary's human rights situation, the dire state of which has alarmed the EC. Nevertheless, the EC is treating the fiscal issue in isolation and Commissioner Oli Rehn declared, "These are two things and we should treat them separately."

Hungary, under Orbán, is consistently moving away from EU values and standards. A new draft law gives the government the right to conscript the unemployed for public work. In case journeys to work are too long, the government can house conscripts in labor camps. A Budget Council has been created with a term of nine years. This means that Orbán can lose the election and yet hold a veto over the budget through his cronies in the Budget Council. The freedom of religion and the right to strike are also in danger.

With a two-thirds majority, the nationalist conservative party, Fidesz, and its satellite party, KDNP, have complete authority to do anything. Orbán, the Prime Minister has been using this parliamentary majority to maximize his power and Hungarian democracy is in a fragile state. The power of the Constitutional Court has been constrained. The Supreme Judge and the Prosecutor are now appointed for nine-year terms and can only be removed by a two-thirds majority. The former Communist Party and their successors are now defined as "criminal organizations", and can expect to be prosecuted. Since January 2012 Hungary is officially no longer a republic. Its new constitution begins with a paean to patriotism.

The EC has largely ignored these events and not taken any action whether in terms of legal proceedings or public criticism. What made the EC act was the danger to the Hungarian central bank and the risk of impending bankruptcy because of Hungary’s high public debt level.

[aeolium]

It wouldn't have the level of indebtedness it now has, because it wouldn't have been attractive to lenders, developers, to speculation in general in the way it was. That's not to say Greece wouldn't be a weak or endangered economy, but the proportions would surely be different.

Yes, and the fact that it was in the eurozone with its very low interest rates set by the ECB meant that it could borrow very cheaply in a way that simply would not have been possible had it had its own currency and possibly much higher rates. It would have certainly been severely affected by the crash, as other non-eurozone countries have, but would have had the possibility of currency devaluation and increased interest rates - an option not available within the eurozone (although some commentators think that there is an effective devaluation taking place across the zone in that a euro in a Greek bank is worth much less than a euro in a German bank).

Greece can't be compared in power and political importance with Nazi Germany. What would the effects of civil meltdown in Greece be? - would it precipitate a breakdown of the EU or would the EU as a 'force for peace' actually come into its own?

No - a fascist Greece would not be a threat to Europe as Nazi Germany was. I was comparing the effects of austerity policies on the rise of extremist parties. Yet a collapse of authority in Greece would probably result in it having to leave the eurozone and possibly the EU (if Golden Dawn became the largest party for instance). That would undoubtedly leave Greece in a disastrous situation, which is why I think the austerity programme being devised by the troika is so counter-productive. Yet it would also leave Europe in a perilous position, as there would be an immediate hit on all banks with exposure to Greek debt, with the serious possibility of a domino effect to other countries like Portugal, Spain or Italy (which would globalise the crisis).

[MrGongGong]

So apart from the obvious mess that the single currency seems to be in
and the political issues which are also obvious
why are so many people in the UK so opposed to having a currency arrangement that facilitates trade with the people whom we do business with the most ? Is it that they want to support the poor banks with extra charges for currency transfers ? or is it simple "little englander" nonsense about having the queens head on the coins ? The obvious advantages to being able to go from France to Belgium to Italy to Spain to Ireland without having to constantly keep changing (and having to remember what is a good deal or not ) currencies seem to be not applicable to folk in the UK ?
When I used to visit places on the Irish border I used to have to have sterling in one pocket and euro in the other ...... completely daft
i suspect we will end up with a single currency by default anyway if businesses start accepting it (which is the case in several UK cities) but why can't I have a bank account in Euro ? I could if I was a big business or wealthy offshore investor etc
which (again !!! ) is not to say that the single currency as implemented has been a great success (indeed YIKES) but for many folk it's made life much much easier on a day to day level ............. but I guess most of the folk who rant on about it all never actually leave a 20 mile radius from their house anyway ....... ???

[aeolium]

why are so many people in the UK so opposed to having a currency arrangement that facilitates trade with the people whom we do business with the most ? Is it that they want to support the poor banks with extra charges for currency transfers ? or is it simple "little englander" nonsense about having the queens head on the coins ? The obvious advantages to being able to go from France to Belgium to Italy to Spain to Ireland without having to constantly keep changing (and having to remember what is a good deal or not ) currencies seem to be not applicable to folk in the UK ?

The point is that those "obvious advantages" are massively outweighed by the great disadvantage of being locked in a currency union which is not a proper fiscal union and has no transfer mechanism between the stronger and the weaker economies within it (as for instance GB has between London and a poorer region like Cornwall, or the USA has between its richer and poorer states). The true scale of that disadvantage can be sadly seen in what is going on in the poorer eurozone countries. Compared with that, it's better to have the inconvenience of changing some coins and notes.

[MrGongGong]

Compared with that, it's better to have the inconvenience of changing some coins and notes.

I do understand all of that
but it's not simply a slight "inconvenience " of changing a few coins as you put it
it is a much bigger disadvantage than that

so is the difference between economies is not much different to that between the richest and poorest states in the USA
or even between Kensington and Salford ?

Of course there is a simple "transfer mechanism" between London and Cornwall, rich people pay more tax which can then be spent on those with less