Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
EU needs to drop Greece.

Is there a mechanism for ejecting countries from the EU?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
EU needs to drop Greece.

Is there a mechanism for ejecting countries from the EU?

EDIT: Actually no, there is no provision to get kicked out, only for a country to leave, Art. 50 TEU, see HERE.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
EU needs to drop Greece.

Is there a mechanism for ejecting countries from the EU?

Article 50 of the of the Treaty of the European Union allows for a country to voluntary leave the union, but AFAIK there is no legal mechanism in place for forcefully ejecting a country from the EU.

So there is no real incentive for Greece to leave?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So there is no real incentive for Greece to leave?

Legally? No.

But there are other "incentives" that the EU can use to make Greece leave of her own free will, like stopping the money transfers.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So there is no real incentive for Greece to leave?

Actually... yeah there is.

They can print their own money after leaving the EU.

Now, if they can pull off a smooth transition... remains to be seen.

PhantomViper wrote:
Legally? No.

But there are other "incentives" that the EU can use to make Greece leave of her own free will, like stopping the money transfers.

"We can't make you leave, but we can show you the door"

Self-deportation?

You can't leave, but we're just going to put all these police and tanks and walls on your border. There might be delays in crossing, due to all the construction...

Do reparations really "mend fences"? Is there any evidence to support that they do? There is clearly evidence to the contrary. The role of reparations in interwar European instability has already been mentioned. So what is the actual point of reparations? Put simply, they are levied by victors in war to punish the vanquished. The punishment can be both material (e.g., to cripple the enemy) and formal (e.g., to force the enemy to assume moral responsibility for the war).

I don't think its designed to mend fences in this instance.

"Mend Fences" would depend on the individuals (citizens) who live in those countries. Which might take up to three more generations to remove or lessen to a degree

 Manchu wrote:
Do reparations really "mend fences"? Is there any evidence to support that they do? There is clearly evidence to the contrary. The role of reparations in interwar European instability has already been mentioned. So what is the actual point of reparations? Put simply, they are levied by victors in war to punish the vanquished. The punishment can be both material (e.g., to cripple the enemy) and formal (e.g., to force the enemy to assume moral responsibility for the war).

Have there been any documented instances of reparations lessening tensions?

That's what I am asking. I don't know of any.

Plus - is current German/Greek diplomatic tension actually a matter of war crimes committed 70+ years ago ... or maybe a matter of unrelated debt owed today?

 Manchu wrote:
Plus - is current German/Greek diplomatic tension actually a matter of war crimes committed 70+ years ago ... or maybe a matter of unrelated debt owed today?

My own personal opinion, based on nothing but the timing of these claims every time Greece needs more money, is that this is playing to the home crowd that the Greek problems are caused by external actors who are holding Greece back, while simultaneously trying to guilt more money from Germany.

PhantomViper wrote:
Why didn't they have no part in it? Didn't they vote for the parties that caused this whole mess?

Some of them, yes. But it happened 7 years ago, and so there are now 25 year olds who weren't didn't vote for them.

Also, Germany doesn't owe the Greeks squat, the issues of the German debts of war to Greece were settled in 1960 when Greece accepted the payment of 115 million Marks as compensation.

I think you've missed my point - if we're going to draw a line and say that with enough time we just stop worrying about a liability... exactly how much time has to pass? Medium of Death claimed that events 70 old were done and dusted... why not events from 5 years ago?

If 5 years is too short a time... what happens five years from now, when the Greek debt is still sitting there? Because the debt will still be sitting there in 10 years, and another 10 years after that. The current primary surplus Greece is running is basically just repaying interest, the debt itself is forever, until it is outgrown (unlikely given growth forecasts for Greece) or eventually forgiven.

So when do we wipe the debt? At what point do we decide that the current Greek population shouldn't have to continue paying for the failures of the past generations?

How long do we insist Greece suffers under the payment plans?

Probably when most of the Generation is dead. It's kinda stupid to insist that debts of 5 years ago be forgiven.

Sining wrote:
Probably when most of the Generation is dead. It's kinda stupid to insist that debts of 5 years ago be forgiven.

First up, it's less stupid and more hyperbole, in order to get people to think about their own arguments.

Second up, a very large part of the Greek debt has already been forgiven, and the rest will be sooner or later, it's just a question of how long Europe insists on primarily surpluses before letting Greece off the rest of the debt.

Third, forgiveness or reduction of debt to organisations in distress is basic business practice. The idea that an organisation should battle on failing to make payments it is now clearly incapable of making is a moral position that's about 200 years past dead.

Once you start to understand those points, and add to it the realisation that this debt was accrued almost entirely by a corrupt oligarchy within Greece, while the debt burden is now suffered by the average Greek citizen, then the moralistic position taken by many in this thread becomes obviously meaningless.

Get rid of that nonsense and we can start to move to useful, practical questions, like how long and harsh should the Greek repayment schedule be before we forgive the debt. Basically how much do we have to punish Greece in order to avoid a moral hazard?

First, there's probably where you and I differ cause I find most hyperbole stupid. If you can't make your argument without making use of hyperbole, then you probably don't have a very good argument either.

Second, what is your point? Let's say I lend money to someone, and I end up forgiving 70% of the debt, I should just forgive the remaining 30% because I've already forgiven 70%? I mean, how does that make sense?

Third, wow, good thing none of the entities involved are businesses then. And while I can understand what you mean but honestly, organisations will let go of bad debt but they will almost never ever deal with the other organisation again. I'm not sure greece wants to be in that position.

A corrupt oligarchy that was still democratically elected by most of the average Greek citizens that are still alive at this point.

It's interesting that you think of it as punishing Greece. Because let's be honest here, Greece borrowed the money. Greece got part of its loan forgiven. Greece STILL can't repay the loan. And somehow this is 'punishing' Greece.

Sining wrote:
First, there's probably where you and I differ cause I find most hyperbole stupid. If you can't make your argument without making use of hyperbole, then you probably don't have a very good argument either.

You should judge an argument as strong or weak by reading the argument and considering it’s merits. Whether it uses a technique that you haven’t liked elsewhere should be irrelevant.

In this case the hyperbole is there simply because of the two things being compared, one is 70 years old and the other 7 years old (arguably older, as it was 7 years ago that it turned to crap, but the underlying processes that grew the debt started long before then). And so I suggested that both things were in the past, in order to get people to think about exactly when something went from being current, to being so old that we can just forget about it and move on.

Note, by the way, that I’ve never gotten an answer.

Second, what is your point? Let's say I lend money to someone, and I end up forgiving 70% of the debt, I should just forgive the remaining 30% because I've already forgiven 70%? I mean, how does that make sense?

Please read my posts, I have already explained this. To repeat my final point so you read it this time;
How long and harsh should the Greek repayment schedule be before we forgive the debt? Basically how much do we have to punish Greece in order to avoid a moral hazard?

Third, wow, good thing none of the entities involved are businesses then. And while I can understand what you mean but honestly, organisations will let go of bad debt but they will almost never ever deal with the other organisation again. I'm not sure greece wants to be in that position.

Umm, no, you actually really have no idea how it works. We’re not talking about simple delinquency and bad debt write-offs like you describe above. We’re talking about companies going to creditors and telling them that a given venture is actually going to be a lot less profitable than thought, so much less profitable that expected profits can’t service the full debt. This is called debt restructuring, and creditors accept this because reduced payments are preferable to potentially greater losses in the event of bankruptcy.

A corrupt oligarchy that was still democratically elected by most of the average Greek citizens that are still alive at this point.

Actually most of the beneficiaries had government contacts but weren’t in government themselves.

It's interesting that you think of it as punishing Greece. Because let's be honest here, Greece borrowed the money. Greece got part of its loan forgiven. Greece STILL can't repay the loan. And somehow this is 'punishing' Greece.

Because the idea that Greece is servicing the debt is a complete nonsense, let alone the idea that they’ll ever pay even this reduced amount back. That is simply something that isn’t happening, and won’t happen.

So instead it becomes a question of how long Germany and Europe insist on the current arrangement, where Greece sends ~4% of GDP back in to Europe as repayment.

It’s like, for instance, if an 8 year old kid stole his Dad’s Porsche and trashed it. So the Dad cancelled the son’s $10 pocket money indefinitely. Everyone, probably even the 8 year old, knows that this cancelled allowance is never going to add up to enough to repay the Porsche. Instead it’s a punishment that will continue until the Dad thinks the son has learned his lesson.

So I’ll repeat my question, how long should Greece continue to have to make these payments before we reset the balance and let their economy begin to recover?

I mean ignoring the fact that Greece and Germany are in this case, neither kid nor adult, and if anything are both mature countries that really should know better than to let anything of this sort happen to them, the thing isn't about punishing Greece. I'm sorry if you feel it is, but basically Greece could have chosen not to borrow the money. It came with a lot of strings attached, which they knew but they could just as easily have chosen to go into bankruptcy even if it was the much more horrible choice. You can try to inject morality into this but frankly, that's stretching it.

And I think you're the one with no idea about debt restructuring. If a company lent another company 2 billion and expected to get back 2 billion + interest, and the other company said 'well, too bad, you can only get 1 billion back', that's really less debt restructuring than it is debt forgiveness.

As it is, nobody is going to start forgiving Greece's debt anytime soon because it would set a horrible precedent for all the other EU countries that are in a bind.

I agree with Sining that the parent/child metaphor is misplaced.

If the question is, why hasn't Germany engineered some kind of Marshall Plan for Greece then perhaps we ought to consider what incentive Germany has to do so, considering the expense.

Thinking back to what the USA stood to gain at the beginning of the Cold War, it is difficult to imagine Germany finding the same potential benefits in Greece today.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree with Sining that the parent/child metaphor is misplaced.

If the question is, why hasn't Germany engineered some kind of Marshall Plan for Greece then perhaps we ought to consider what incentive Germany has to do so, considering the expense.

Thinking back to what the USA stood to gain at the beginning of the Cold War, it is difficult to imagine Germany finding the same potential benefits in Greece today.

That is a very good point. Which incentive does the German government (or the French, and surely the British) see to avoid a total desaster?
One has to ask if they have a plan at all, or if secretly they have already decided to accept a Grexit, with all the negative consequences it would have for the Greek people. (re-introducing and devalueing the Drahme would not help for European bonds and make it much more difficult to get new cash credits.)

One note on wording:

It is not "Germany", it is "the EU".
While I am aware that, right now, Germany effectively is a hegemonial power in the EU (which is not a nice thought to me, having a very low opinion of our governement) it is also true that Germany's foreign policy, and especially the European policy (and politics) have always been very much coordinated through the EC/EU institutions (and/or in silent cooperation with the USA). Plus, they would never want to pay the bill alone.

And I thought our country was in serious debt....

 Da Stormlord wrote:
And I thought our country was in serious debt....

It is. But states work very different from companies or individuals. They can usually get away with having huge debts unless things really go wrong like with Greece.
Also, the UK's debt is nothing compared to what is probably the largest debt in human history: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 treslibras wrote:

It is not "Germany", it is "the EU".
While I am aware that, right now, Germany effectively is a hegemonial power in the EU (which is not a nice thought to me, having a very low opinion of our governement) it is also true that Germany's foreign policy, and especially the European policy (and politics) have always been very much coordinated through the EC/EU institutions (and/or in silent cooperation with the USA). Plus, they would never want to pay the bill alone.

And who controls the EU? Sure, Britain, the other states and especially France have some say in it, but it is Germany that is the decisive factor. Nothing will be done without German approval or political power behind it.
So yeah, while the EU ≠ Germany, the two are very closely related.

Greeks are doomed, they owe way too much to ever repay, the country is a dump right now, tourisam the old standby is not what it was.

They are best leaving, it will hurt hard but they will never repay the debts they owe and at this rate will never recover.


As to giving them more money to help, they have already had billion uopon billion given to them. More aint going to help.

s to leaving it can be done on paper, things exist but no ones ever used them or even thought about how to put them into practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Greeks are doomed, they owe way too much to ever repay, the country is a dump right now, tourisam the old standby is not what it was.

They are best leaving, it will hurt hard but they will never repay the debts they owe and at this rate will never recover.


As to giving them more money to help, they have already had billion uopon billion given to them. More aint going to help.

s to leaving it can be done on paper, things exist but no ones ever used them or even thought about how to put them into practice.

 treslibras wrote:
Which incentive does the German government (or the French, and surely the British) see to avoid a total desaster?

What exactly is the total disaster? Greek re-alignment toward Moscow?

 Manchu wrote:

 treslibras wrote:
Which incentive does the German government (or the French, and surely the British) see to avoid a total desaster?

What exactly is the total disaster? Greek re-alignment toward Moscow?

They will start sending wooden horses to everyone who's slighted them.

No more Greek Yogurt. Yar!

I believe Putin see Greece as a lost cause.