Praise the Heavens - Greece is holding a referendum

[LemonDifficult]

I was wondering when someone would, like, mention Democracy.

The Greek PM has played a political blinder. He's refusing to take the historical buck for the austerity measures, he's making the people listen to his message, and he's making sure that whatever details get thrashed out on the latest Euro Zone Package have to go Greece's way so that the Greeks will approve it.

Oh, and he's also doing the morally correct thing in a democracy and putting this massive piece of legislation to the Greek people. Respect.

And proof that the markets don't like democracies (not really) they're falling. Not good that bankers thought we lived in a world where they really did have the last word.

What "time to discuss it"? The country is bankrupt and it is taking the EU down with it. The entire European Union doesn't have the kind of money they need and they had to beg China for it. And with this, they offered a bailout to Greece, who should be eating humble pie and being very grateful indeed. Not taking time to discuss, fgs

The larger EU economies have already given loads and will be given even higher amounts to Greece. What about their citizens who had nothing to do with Greeks' irresponsible borrowing and their state's flat out lying to the EU re their finances for years?

"I'm not sure that the creditors will accept the haircut"

You must have missed the part where the 50% haircut is voluntary and has already been agreed to by the banks. They will take the loss, then governments will recapitalize them - probably by ultra-cheap funding. So banks will not be losing here, little people will, because that money will have to come from somewhere.

The 'it' of my 'time to discuss it' was the revised eurobailout of last week, which the Greek people haven't had years to discuss.

I know what you said. They don't have time to discuss it. Take a look at their repayment schedule.

Yes, that's why I said 'had there been time to discuss it'.

Cote, Greece is protected because Turkey is also member of NATO, so any posturing will be resolved there; and last time I looked, NATO did defence, not the EU. As Turkey is not a member of the EU, I fail to see how being in the EU will help Greece with Turkey.

It doesn't matter how big Turkey's military is, Greece considers itself to be at war and thus they have a shedload of senior officers who need paying. I didn't say that Greece wads trying to increase its military, but that it has far more senior officers, and these are expensive.

I'm sure the rest of their public sector is bloated; but dh was tickled by the amount of Brigadier-Generals they have, given you have to be a real thruster to achieve that in the British Army.

'You must have missed the part where the 50% haircut is voluntary and has already been agreed to by the banks.'

It's not just the banks though. I haven't seen anything in the press that this had been accepted; I understood it was still in negotiation, as some weren't volunteering.

scary - Sorry but at "Greece is protected because Turkey is also member of NATO so any posturing will be resolved there; and last time I looked, NATO did defence, not the EU."

Maybe you should look again. You should see that NATO's mandate is protection of its members from outside threats.

Both Greece and Turkey halve been NATO members since early '50s and yet that did not stop them from having a mini-war over Cyprus in '70s. NATO couldn't do anything to stop this, nor did they defend their weaker member Greece. And that is because, as I said above, NATO defends members against outside threats, not from each other.

"As Turkey is not a member of the EU, I fail to see how being in the EU will help Greece with Turkey."

Strange that you fail to see this. Turkey would easily take on Greece on its own and quickly win, regardless of how many generals it has in its army "protecting" those itsy bitsy rocks in the Aegean. However, taking on Greece when it's part of the EU would mean taking on the entire EU and Turkey would never do that unless present conditions change dramatically (long scenario we can go into if you are interested). Therefore, Greece is best protected from its more powerful neighbor by staying under the EU umbrella and not by having a few more generals and I suspect they know this.

I am aware of NATOs mandate, however, a watching brief can and has been held on Cyprus, especially when the Sec-Gen is asked to do so by ministers. After all, it makes the functioning of NATO very difficult if members are at loggerheads. So to you too. It could also be considered an article 5 attack, and if you look at the Washington treaty it doesn't mention that the armed attack should be specifically by non NATO members.

If Turkey invaded Greece, the EU would stand by and wring its hands and make diplomatic protests. It would affect trade, sure, but militarily the EU has no firepower of its own - it has to rely on member states, most of whom are already in, or PfP with, NATO.

So two members in military conflict would make it "difficult" for NATO to function and that means any member is protected from war with any other member? Sorry but that doesn't make sense and it's demonstrably false: As I said before, Greece and Turkey were both NATO members when they entered military conflict over Cyprus in early 1970s.

I can't think of any reason why Turkey would invade Greece, by the way. I'm only pointing out that (1) Greece's military is so vastly outnumbered vs Turkey's that tryi to increase no of soldiers/generals is futile, and (2) if they are concerned about a future conflict with Turkey and "consider themselves at war", then Greeks should make doubly sure that EU doesn't kick them out.

It's not demonstrably false at all - what it means is that there would be lots of back room activity in the MC and other meetings to resolve the situation. As I said, NATO had a watching brief on the Cyprus situation back then, and was trying to get it resolved.

Again, I didn't say that Greece was trying to increase its soldiers (you have to be in a fair while to make Brig-Gen), just that they had a top heavy military, and thus expensive. They consider themselves 'at war' with Turkey all the time, and I still fail to see apart from sending Cathy Ashton in to have a meeting and threaten sanctions (which some member states would uphold and some wouldn't because trying to get consensus in the EU is like herding cats), what the EU would, or could, do about it.

You don't get what I'm saying. I give up. It's not an important point for this thread anyway. Here, have a

The least bad option, according to the BBC.

I've just read an article by Economist Meg Here say that the composition of the next government doesn't matter in any case.