Insolvent Referendum

On October 29, 2011, Member of Parliament Charlie Angus, who is my Facebook friend, posted this link to concerns about loss of political sovereignty in the context of the proposed further bailout of Greece, as well as the perilous financial circumstances of other EU countries. Charlie was neutral in his assessment of the sentiments–the article is “interesting”:

Here is an interesting article on the effect the European Debt “solution” will have on the democratic rights of European people.

I posted a response comment on Facebook, which was not neutral:

When you are insolvent and effectively in receivership, one’s economic choices are limited to the approval of those continuing to provide credit, individually or nationally: “The agreed EU “stability union” triumphantly paraded before the media in Brussels will have the power to approve or disapprove budgets of countries in the eurozone – that is, to vet and police them – before they are submitted to the elected parliaments of those countries.” What can possibly be objectionable here? Now, if we could apply the sample principle to equalization/provincial welfare in Canada…

To which my friend, Neil Remington Abramson, added his comments, in a separate e-mail message (reproduced with permission):

The Greeks are so funny. They want full control over their spending but want to inflict their debts on the Germans and other EU partner nations. They even misled the EU over the size of their debts just to get in.

I fully support Greek self-determination. They should be, and long ago should have been, cut loose to pursue their own course. If I were German, I would totally oppose Merkel’s bailout plans. But if I had to pay, I would want a measure of control to protect my own resources.

This lack of financial coordination is the Achilles heel of the Eurozone. Without it, Germany and any other solvent Euro nation should cut loose any or all of the PIIIGS (Portugal, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain). If France is bust, then bust them too.

Democracy is fine, but you have to also be totally responsible for your choices – no excuses, no mulligans. No one is too big to fail. No one should be bailed out by someone else, except as an act of Christian charity.

Neil followed these sentiments with noting, yesterday, that Greece, for reasons that seem to make little sense, intends to hold a referendum as to whether to accept the bailout conditions. If I am not mistaken, the referendum is to occur next January, while Greece is predicted to run out of money sometime this month:

There you go – democracy! What if they vote it down? Refuse to pay a cent? Total default? Don’t have to pay the other 50% and EU gets a Telly Savalas financial haircut? The EU had better put off the bailout! Save their money to save themselves.


I wonder if this is a shared sentiment, across nations; running out of money is impossible, since somebody, somewhere, will give us more, or we can print more.

And if this is happening in Greece, why do we not hear about similar financial crises in supposedly “third world” countries, such as in Africa? Is it because the latter are in some form of perpetual receivership, to which the populace has become accustomed?

About brucelarochelle
This entry was posted in Africa, Equalization, Greece, International Financial Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s