• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greece's Tsipras calls referendum to break bailout deadlock

If anything it was their fellow Christians in the 4th Crusade that ruined Byzantium. How did the Greeks ruin the Romans?

Neither we nor Greeks wanted to cooperate with the Romans.
 
Absolutely agree - however it is also clear the major EU nations knew or should have suspected that Greece was not in the best condition to share a currency. If you as a wealthy, hardworking person agreed to share financial status and an account with someone way below you in terms of output, industry etc why would you be surprised that the person was using your good reputation and buying what he / she couldn't afford?

Germany and France were the first to break the spending limits... So the Greeks looking on could hardly be blamed for thinking "why shouldn't we?" .


Uhm, Greece NEVER qualified under the Maastricht rules on deficit spending.

They weren't persuaded or influenced after watching others spend, Greece is a Country not a child.

They were spending beyond their means prior to entering into the Union amd they never stopped until their debt was downgraded.

Greece Caught Underreporting Its Budget Deficit By Nearly 50% | Zero Hedge
 
Constantine the Great was Dardanian.
Born in York to Thracian-Illyrian parents. Saying he's 'Dardanian' is like claiming Jesus was Israeli or Hannibal was Tunisian, only even more stupid since there's no such country as Dardania.
 
That's not true. The Greek debt hasn't suddenly increased. Government spending hasn't increased. The past accumulation of debt is what the whole discussion is about. It's not about a debt that the Syriza government has had any hand in creating. This very current banking issue has been created by the limit of the ELA by the institutions in retaliation for Tsipras call for a referendum. Tsipras has called their bluff and hence Juncker has come back with an improved offer, which the Greek government are currently discussing, one that will make the payment to the IMF slightly more possible. of course, Juncker has added the rider that acceptance of this deal will be contingent on Tsipras recommending a yes vote on the referendum - so much for Merkel's assurance that no external force will try to influence the electorate's decision.

The current Greek government deliberately provoked a liquidity and possibly solvency crisis in its banking system. The capital controls and pension rationing were completely avoidable and unnecessary had the government acted with a view of Greece's larger interests, not Syriza's narrower ones.

The European Union needs to communicate forcefully to the Greek people that the referendum has implications for Greece's Euro Zone viability. While Europe almost certainly won't attempt to expel Greece, something Tsipiras would probably prefer rather than his having to make a choice, a Greek rejection could prolong the capital controls as the self-inflicted liquidity crisis intensifies. It could also lead to the ECB's withdrawing part of its emergency liquidity assistance, triggering a solvency crisis.

On the debt issue, the matter is more complex. To the extent that the Tsipiras government has created the liquidity crisis and to the extent that situation undercuts macroeconomic activity, Greece's debt burden relative to its economy will increase. So, even if it doesn't increase in absolute terms, a relative increase would occur.
 
How exactly does democracy overcome mathematics?

The referendum has little to do with democracy. It has almost everything to do with a radical government's seeking to offload its leadership responsibilities on the people in order to evade accountability for the consequences of the reckless fiscal and financial crisis it provoked.
 
The current Greek government deliberately provoked a liquidity and possibly solvency crisis in its banking system. The capital controls and pension rationing were completely avoidable and unnecessary had the government acted with a view of Greece's larger interests, not Syriza's narrower ones.

The European Union needs to communicate forcefully to the Greek people that the referendum has implications for Greece's Euro Zone viability. While Europe almost certainly won't attempt to expel Greece, something Tsipiras would probably prefer rather than his having to make a choice, a Greek rejection could prolong the capital controls as the self-inflicted liquidity crisis intensifies. It could also lead to the ECB's withdrawing part of its emergency liquidity assistance, triggering a solvency crisis.

On the debt issue, the matter is more complex. To the extent that the Tsipiras government has created the liquidity crisis and to the extent that situation undercuts macroeconomic activity, Greece's debt burden relative to its economy will increase. So, even if it doesn't increase in absolute terms, a relative increase would occur.

This is a real head-in-the-sand diversionary argument. You believe Greece should concede to the continuation of a set of policies that has already increased Greece's debt burden from 110% of GDP to 170%. The IMF admits that the policies the Troika are insisting on will not work, yet Syriza are accused of having an unrealistic position.

It really beggars belief.
 
Uhm, Greece NEVER qualified under the Maastricht rules on deficit spending.

They weren't persuaded or influenced after watching others spend, Greece is a Country not a child.

They were spending beyond their means prior to entering into the Union amd they never stopped until their debt was downgraded.

Greece Caught Underreporting Its Budget Deficit By Nearly 50% | Zero Hedge

Will be back to this - I don't disagree but I disagree your putting all blame on the Greeks and ignoring the role the EU and the main Eurozone powers had in allowing Greece to join the Euro.

How 'magic' made Greek debt disappear before it joined the euro - BBC News
 
An off-topic side conversation. Sorry.

Just to clear up any confusion caused by my confusion, I thought Mr. Grimm was telling me what he's wrong about. I didn't realize you were doing it for him.
 
Born in York to Thracian-Illyrian parents. Saying he's 'Dardanian' is like claiming Jesus was Israeli or Hannibal was Tunisian, only even more stupid since there's no such country as Dardania.

Illiria had many tribes.

Which source are you alluding to? Might it have details as to which tribe of Illiria Constantine the Great came from?

Further Dardania existed back then, and it exists today too.
 
Strange response. You say 'you can't compare the EU and the US', and then you do just that, quite accurately. Compare means to note the similarities and dissimilarities between two things.

The discussion I referred to made those same points, demonstrating two relevant aspects of this situation: a)the lack of solidarity within the EU leadership that belies their claims that we are a community of nations. An attitude within a community, as within a federal nation, is to support its weakest members. The attitude the EU and ECB are showing is that of a transaction between supplier and client. And b) the fundamental design flaw of the Eurozone - i.e that a common currency requires political and fiscal harmonisation, otherwise is operates solely as a market of unequal players, as we can plainly see.
Seems we're talking past each other.

I have no dissent to all of what you say above, the salient point remains that to put the EU into a status that resembles the "sovereignty" that allows financial transfers (within) like in the US (or Germany or Spain or UK), it needs to be taken there.

As things stand, any further transfers from the donors to to any recipient state have to pass national parliaments in most states. As 5 years ago. In Germany alone any such notion or motion would currently fail. And not just in Germany.

As to your opening (2nd) sentence, you know fully well what is meant when two disparate entities are deemed not to be comparable. Semantic sophistry doesn't get one around that.
 
Mark Mazower on point. One can finally see it crystallise that Greece is now led by would be global revolutionaries who came into power too suddenly. When I saw Tsipras, as one of his first orders of business as PM, start writing op-eds for national newspapers of various European countries it should have been more apparent what was going on. What's the quote again, "campaign in poetry, govern in prose"? He never made that transition.

What Mr. Tsipras has fundamentally disregarded is Greece’s extreme weakness. On the one hand, it is weak like any small country, with limited capacity to affect the rules of international life. But it has the additional weakness of a poorly functioning economy and a crushing debt.

Syriza’s response to this has been schizophrenic. It likes to highlight the country’s vulnerability by castigating powerful offstage villains — domestic oligarchs, international bankers and Germany, too. (Once upon a time, the United States topped that list, but it is mentioned less these days.)

But at the same time, the party evokes the potential strength of unfettered people power; the leap to genuine sovereignty to be made by leading a worldwide revolution against austerity. And, failing that, in a phrase heard more and more the past few months in Athens, there is talk of a kind of collective suicide, like those Greeks who blew themselves up rather than surrendering to Turkish forces two centuries ago.

This rhetoric didn’t appear out of thin air. It bears the marks of the milieu that formed Mr. Tsipras as he grew up in the years after Greece’s seven-year military dictatorship ended in 1974. A student culture flourished in the following decades that placed a premium on activism, and saw a revolutionary potential in every high school occupation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/opinion/dont-bet-on-syriza-alexis-tsipras-greece.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
Okay, so you think the Byzantine Empire wasn't Greek, and began 3 centuries after it was created by Constantine the Great in 330CE. Fine. I'll leave you to your ignorance.
Contemporaries of the times never referred to it as Byzantine Empire, moder historians have taken that tack.

FWIW it defined itself as Roman (later East Roman).

Basically a formation compiling Roman state form, Greek culture and Christian faith.

Even Greeks called themselves Romans well into the 19th century ( Ῥωμαῖοι Rhōmaîoi).
 
Contemporaries of the times never referred to it as Byzantine Empire, moder historians have taken that tack.

FWIW it defined itself as Roman (later East Roman).

Basically a formation compiling Roman state form, Greek culture and Christian faith.

Even Greeks called themselves Romans well into the 19th century ( Ῥωμαῖοι Rhōmaîoi).

I'm aware of that. The point in dispute is that DDD was claiming that Byzantium was not a predominantly Greek empire. It was. It was never a homogeneously Greek empire, some of its most prominent leaders were of different ethnicities, Isaurians, Illyrians, Armenians, and others, but culturally it was Greek.
 
I'm aware of that. The point in dispute is that DDD was claiming that Byzantium was not a predominantly Greek empire. It was. It was never a homogeneously Greek empire, some of its most prominent leaders were of different ethnicities, Isaurians, Illyrians, Armenians, and others, but culturally it was Greek.
Well, maybe getting a bit OT by now but it was never a Greek empire. Of course it's a matter of what parameters one applies but culture alone won't cut it.

Quite apart from which its official language remained Latin until well into the 7th century when Herakleios (who DDD mentions) began "grecianizing" it.

There had been no independent entity "Greece" since heck knows when, if indeed there ever had been one at all. So no Greek empire could have arisen (Even under Alexander it was the Macedon empire).

Constantine didn't found a Greek empire, he took power over all of Rome and then made administrative changes, one of them consisting of building a new residence at Byzantium (a town). His place of birth had nothing to do with anything that would have made him un-Roman, certainly as little as Hadrian's Spanish descent would have made his rule Spanish.

That Greek was spoken thruout the Roman empire and its culture heavily influenced any Roman (and not just those) made Rome as little Greek as the US is English. That goes for what became known as Eastern Rome (with the "Western" decline) as well.

Indeed Roman armies re-captured a lot of the land that the "barbarians" had vested from what is now the Italian peninsula. That they came from the East got nobody calling them Greek armies.
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe getting a bit OT by now but it was never a Greek empire. Of course it's a matter of what parameters one applies but culture alone won't cut it.

Quite apart from which its official language remained Latin until well into the 7th century when Herakleios (who DDD mentions) began "grecianizing" it.

There had been no independent entity "Greece" since heck knows when, if indeed there ever had been one at all. So no Greek empire could have arisen (Even under Alexander it was the Macedon empire).

Constantine didn't found a Greek empire, he took power over all of Rome and then made administrative changes, one of them consisting of building a new residence at Byzantium (a town). His place of birth had nothing to do with anything that would have made him un-Roman, certainly as little as Hadrian's Spanish descent would have made his rule Spanish.

That Greek was spoken thruout the Roman empire and its culture heavily influenced any Roman (and not just those) made Rome as little Greek as the US is English. That goes for what became known as Eastern Rome (with the "Western" decline) as well.

Indeed Roman armies re-captured a lot of the land that the "barbarians" had vested from what is now the Italian peninsula. That they came from the East got nobody calling them Greek armies.

I suppose the distinctive Greek feature was the Orthodox church.
 
I suppose the distinctive Greek feature was the Orthodox church.
Hmmm.......in the time span I cite, even the official Church language was Latin in Byzantium. And even "grecianization" didn't occur overnight, neither to the churches nor the society as whole.

Basically there had been internal ecclesiastically strife over all sorts of issues for some time with Rome (the Holy See) claiming superiority and Byzantium demanding the same.

They began closing each others' churches early in the 11th century where they could. There were "Easterns" in Southern Italy and "Westerns" in Byzantium, and from thereon things went South.

Such things as disagreement over the origin or source of the Holy Spirit and whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist were cited but one may reasonably assume the main issue having been one of who gets to rule everybody, including the others.

That's what it always is about.

Ever since Roman Catholics are "Latins" in Greece and not always without a sneer.
 
Hmmm.......in the time span I cite, even the official Church language was Latin in Byzantium. And even "grecianization" didn't occur overnight, neither to the churches nor the society as whole.

Basically there had been internal ecclesiastically strife over all sorts of issues for some time with Rome (the Holy See) claiming superiority and Byzantium demanding the same.

They began closing each others' churches early in the 11th century where they could. There were "Easterns" in Southern Italy and "Westerns" in Byzantium, and from thereon things went South.

Such things as disagreement over the origin or source of the Holy Spirit and whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist were cited but one may reasonably assume the main issue having been one of who gets to rule everybody, including the others.

That's what it always is about.

Ever since Roman Catholics are "Latins" in Greece and not always without a sneer.

Caesaropapist control of the patriarchs began in the fourth century, as I recall. That had to make a difference.
 
Caesaropapist control of the patriarchs began in the fourth century, as I recall. That had to make a difference.
Well, basically with Constantine and extending thruout the Roman empire where it (he) held power. But actual dominance over the church by the "secular" ruler not until Justinian around 200 years later.

Extending to the "western" church, once Eastern Roman armies threw the Goths back out and regained control (of Italy).
 
So to summarize:

Byzantines? The Greek empire ruined themselves?

It seems the previous position was that the Byzantine empire was a Greek Empire. I held a different position that it was not a Greek Empire, though Greeks were one of the Byzantines inhabitants, that took over after Foca fell, and maintained power at the demise of the rest of the population by cooperating with Slavs. On this previous post you challenge the position while asserting that the Byzantine Empire was entirely Greek and that I was ignorant to think otherwise (in post 274) and that I should read history by reading Weak-O-Pedia (in post 268).

Okay, so you think the Byzantine Empire wasn't Greek, and began 3 centuries after it was created by Constantine the Great in 330CE.

So the question rises: How can the Byzantine empire be an entirely Greek Empire if its ruler and creator Constantine the Great was Dardanian, Illirian (not Greek) according to your own claim below?

Born in York to Thracian-Illyrian parents.
 
Well, basically with Constantine and extending thruout the Roman empire where it (he) held power. But actual dominance over the church by the "secular" ruler not until Justinian around 200 years later.

Extending to the "western" church, once Eastern Roman armies threw the Goths back out and regained control (of Italy).

Speaking of which, Justinian was not Greek neither. He too is of Dardanian descent.

But the point is, the Greeks were not cooperative with the Romans (perhaps we should not blame them there), they betrayed their own people and cooperated with the Slavs to maintain ever decreasing control of remaining Byzantines until its total demise from the Ottoman Empire. They did not cooperate with the Ottoman Empire and got their independence with our help and would later not acknowledge it (Albanians are discriminated in Greece).

Next stop, ruining the EU.
 
So the question rises: How can the Byzantine empire be an entirely Greek Empire if its ruler and creator Constantine the Great was Dardanian, Illirian (not Greek) according to your own claim below?
Who said it was? That's the opposite of what I said. I'll put that down to English not being your first language. No biggie.
 
This is a real head-in-the-sand diversionary argument. You believe Greece should concede to the continuation of a set of policies that has already increased Greece's debt burden from 110% of GDP to 170%. The IMF admits that the policies the Troika are insisting on will not work, yet Syriza are accused of having an unrealistic position.

It really beggars belief.


The Greek Prime Minister has adopted a delusional course. There was always a two-step process: Step 1: Immediate financing in exchange for necessary reforms; Step 2: Debt relief.

Had the Greek Prime Minister acted early to agree to the need for immediate financing back in February or March, discussions could have been well underway on the debt relief angle. Instead, he squandered time and ultimately ran out negotiations to the deadline, finally blowing them up with his referendum call. He acted in bad faith and poisoned negotiations.

Almost certainly, a fresh leader would gain more generous terms than the current one will. Destruction of trust has costs and the Tsipiras government has taken an approach that has inflicted added costs.

The best immediate outcome would be a "Yes" vote in the referendum, a quick resignation of the current government, and then a new government's being elected and adopting the reform package. Afterward, the EU/ECB/IMF should be as generous as possible with the new government when it comes to debt relief talks.

Very likely, Tsipiras would resent such generosity when he could not obtain such terms. But it was his self-destructive approach that deprived him of such a chance and inflicted on Greece's people the needless suffering from capital controls and pension rationing from his actions.
 
The Greek Prime Minister has adopted a delusional course. There was always a two-step process: Step 1: Immediate financing in exchange for necessary reforms; Step 2: Debt relief.
You know that's not true. The Troika have repeatedly and consistently refused to talk about debt relief. The IMF have just mentioned it now, I suspect as a way to undermine the no vote. It has never been on the table as Step 2, 3 or 99.


Almost certainly, a fresh leader would gain more generous terms than the current one will.
That is for purely political reasons, supporting Brussels failed place-men, Samaras et al.

Destruction of trust has costs and the Tsipiras government has taken an approach that has inflicted added costs.
Trust has to operate both ways or it isn't trust. The Troika have shown themselves to be consistently untrustworthy.

The best immediate outcome would be a "Yes" vote in the referendum, a quick resignation of the current government, and then a new government's being elected and adopting the reform package.
The yes vote might win, Tsipras and Syriza would call new elections, but I suspect they would win them even more handsomely. Where would that leave us?

Afterward, the EU/ECB/IMF should be as generous as possible with the new government when it comes to debt relief talks.
In order to do that they'd have to offer terms that they've specifically ruled out and which would have been accepted had they been offered, thereby confirming the suspicion that this entire crisis has been manufactured by the Troika in order to effect regime change.

A classic bloodless coup is under way. Let's hope it doesn't succeed.
 
You know that's not true. The Troika have repeatedly and consistently refused to talk about debt relief.

The Troika only rejected immediate debt relief, not debt relief in principle. From The Guardian:

Some form of debt restructuring would be promised to Athens in the future, but it would come with strings attached and not as part of the current bailout package, they said.

Creditors offer Greece six-month bailout reprieve as Tsipras weighs response | World news | The Guardian

That is for purely political reasons, supporting Brussels failed place-men, Samaras et al.

The former Prime Minister may not have been an outstanding leader, but compared to the current Prime Minister he would be a vastly superior choice. It is highly unlikely that he would have blown up the negotiations as Tsipiras did.

Trust has to operate both ways or it isn't trust. The Troika have shown themselves to be consistently untrustworthy.

I disagree. They worked to conclude a deal. They did not walk out. They didn't punt on their responsibilities.

The yes vote might win, Tsipras and Syriza would call new elections, but I suspect they would win them even more handsomely. Where would that leave us?

That's always possible. I was alluding to what I thought would be the best-case outcome. The opposition should make the referendum and any election a mandate on remaining within the Euro Zone and tie the Tsipiras government and Syriza to seeking a backdoor exit.
 
Back
Top Bottom