True situation within Greece

[WalkOn21]

Originally Posted by Aygo

So, Robert Fico only voted against it in the "first round" only to bring the government down so his party could govern (with new elections?), is that it?

Yes, that is exactly it. The ruling government at the time made the EFSF motion a vote of confidence, so that if defeated, it would bring down the government. Robert Fico thereupon announced that he would vote against the motion in the first vote, thus bringing down the government, promising to vote in favour of the motion in a subsequent second vote. And so it happened.

In Portugal, a journalist that comments news said that reunions with the euro-chiefs were so tough that the Prime-Minister left her last the reunions in tears. Is that true?

I haven't heard anything about that.

[Aygo]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

Yes, that is exactly it. The ruling government at the time made the EFSF motion a vote of confidence, so that if defeated, it would bring down the government. Robert Fico thereupon announced that he would vote against the motion in the first vote, thus bringing down the government, promising to vote in favour of the motion in a subsequent second vote. And so it happened.

That's exactly what happened in Portugal in April. The pseudo-Socialist government "transformed" the voting for the Stability and Growth Program (which has nothing for growth, but that's another story) in a confidence motion and all the oposition, from right to left voted against it. Now we have a right-wing government imposing tougher measures than the program they rejected because "it was too tough". A similar situation happened in 1985, but the opposition was punished in the following elections and the then-minoritary government won with a large majority.

But let me see if I understand: what kind of government had Slovakia? Because Robert Fico's was the most voted by far in 2010, but he wasn't Prime Minister. Why? Does it mean that the whole opposition formed a coalition government only aganist Fico's party? Is that it?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

Quotes from the Telegraph will hardly give a fair and balanced view of the eurocrisis.

Not only do they present their readership with the most negativistic possible reporting on the eurozone, they don't shy away from printing exaggerations and outright falsehoods either. Such as when they claimed that Slovakia had been "bullied into" agreeing to the EFSF expansion in a second vote after its government fell, when in reality Robert Fico (the opposition leader) had always said he would agree to it and that he was only voting against it the first time because it would bring the right-wing government down, with him being quoted as saying: "We’re saying ‘no’ to a rightist government, but we’re saying ‘yes’ to the rescue fund."

So excuse me for not paying much attention to what the Telegraph prints. It reads like a UKIP pamphlet.

Eurofederalists tend to dislike the Telegraph because it is incisive, analytical and usually correct.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by mama cass

Sarko and Merkel do seem to be getting very heavy handed now and have certainly done a massive U-turn from "we're all in this together!" just a few months/weeks ago, to now rejecting joint liability and wanting to adopt these punitive measures for "naughty" countries! wonder what will happen when Italy and Spain cannot meet their debts, because France will be truly fucked at that point!

Yeah, I know that the Telegraph in general and Evans-Pritchard in particular are known for being vociferously anti-EU...if anything I was surprised to see him acknowledge the domestic political limits on Merkel as clearly as he did; last time I saw one of his columns (I don't read him regularly) he was still under the impression that the ECB could, would and should print money under IMF cover to address the problem. Yeah right! That said, I essentially agree with him about the currency misalignment and trade surplus, which from an American perspective is a bit of a headspinner to deem a "right wing" argument.

[WalkOn21]

Originally Posted by Aygo

But let me see if I understand: what kind of government had Slovakia? Because Robert Fico's was the most voted by far in 2010, but he wasn't Prime Minister. Why? Does it mean that the whole opposition formed a coalition government only aganist Fico's party? Is that it?

When Robert Fico was prime minister between 2006-2010, he and his social democratic party formed a coalition with the nationalist party and the People's Party. Back then, this combination had a parliamentary majority.

In the 2010 elections, however, while Fico's social democratic party won even more seats than in 2006, the nationalist party and the People's Party suffered massive losses and the coalition lost its parliamentary majority, thereby making way for a four-party centre-right coalition (not including any of the parties that formed the previous government). Regardless of the election results it wasn't altogether certain if Fico would've continued to govern together with the nationalist party, this cooperation between a social democratic party and a nationalist party having earned him substantial criticism and a suspension from the Party of European Socialists.

Originally Posted by financeguy

Eurofederalists tend to dislike the Telegraph because it is incisive, analytical and usually correct.

Except... it isn't. The example I gave is only one of many inaccuracies and misrepresentations that can be found in the Telegraph's reporting on the EU and the eurozone. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to be sceptic of European integration, but the Telegraph takes a particularly low-on-facts approach to defaming the EU.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

When Robert Fico was prime minister between 2006-2010, he and his social democratic party formed a coalition with the nationalist party and the People's Party. Back then, this combination had a parliamentary majority.

In the 2010 elections, however, while Fico's social democratic party won even more seats than in 2006, the nationalist party and the People's Party suffered massive losses and the coalition lost its parliamentary majority, thereby making way for a four-party centre-right coalition (not including any of the parties that formed the previous government). Regardless of the election results it wasn't altogether certain if Fico would've continued to govern together with the nationalist party, this cooperation between a social democratic party and a nationalist party having earned him substantial criticism and a suspension from the Party of European Socialists.

In Eastern Europe left/right wing when referring to political parties are always all over the place and it's a mess.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

Except... it isn't. The example I gave is only one of many inaccuracies and misrepresentations that can be found in the Telegraph's reporting on the EU and the eurozone. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to be sceptic of European integration, but the Telegraph takes a particularly low-on-facts approach to defaming the EU.

You really have fallen for the Eurocrat kool-aid.

[Aygo]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

When Robert Fico was prime minister between 2006-2010, he and his social democratic party formed a coalition with the nationalist party and the People's Party. Back then, this combination had a parliamentary majority.

In the 2010 elections, however, while Fico's social democratic party won even more seats than in 2006, the nationalist party and the People's Party suffered massive losses and the coalition lost its parliamentary majority, thereby making way for a four-party centre-right coalition (not including any of the parties that formed the previous government). Regardless of the election results it wasn't altogether certain if Fico would've continued to govern together with the nationalist party, this cooperation between a social democratic party and a nationalist party having earned him substantial criticism and a suspension from the Party of European Socialists.


Except... it isn't. The example I gave is only one of many inaccuracies and misrepresentations that can be found in the Telegraph's reporting on the EU and the eurozone. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to be sceptic of European integration, but the Telegraph takes a particularly low-on-facts approach to defaming the EU.

Oh okay, now it makes sense to me.

It seems that in Eastern Europe there's the same "sickness" of Social-Democratic/Third Way parties trying to fool people with political marketing. I mean: the "Socialist Party" from Portugal, France, Spain (Social-Labourist), Austria, the UK (the Labour Party), Hungary, Greece, etc, all these parties are not socialist at all, they're Social-Democratics with strong Third Way behaviour for ages and ages.
The European Socialist Party (in the European Parliament) is a big mess with parties self-called "socialist" (which are not socialist at all because they're for the market-type economy) and parties self-called "social-democratic", but most of them are not socialist or were socialist long, long ago.

In Portugal, I've been listening to Mário Soares saying for decades the same thing he said in an interview last week, that "democratic socialism and social-democracy is the same thing". This marketing has been done for decades.
I personally believe that there's no such thing as "democratic socialism". That's only a way to imply that other/real socialist parties/movements are not democratic. Does it mean that neo-socialist parties (like the portuguese "Left Block", the "Socialist Party" from the Netherlands, the Left Alliance from Ireland, the german Die Linke, etc.) are not democratic or that haven't been democratically elected? Obviously not. And these are the parties that really represent socialism ideology, I think.
Just for curiosity, in Portugal, we have the "Partido Social-Democrata", but this party is (and defines it self as) a right-wing party (center-right when trying to conquer votes). It's basically a Conservative Party with Economic-Liberalists but self-called... Social-Democratic. Isn't it funny?
Do these people constantly forget that social-democracy was born in some sort of discontent with original socialism and, for so, these are two different ideologies? Do they forget that some people know that they're fooling many other with this political marketing?

[WalkOn21]

Originally Posted by financeguy

You really have fallen for the Eurocrat kool-aid.

This doesn't have anything to do with my political opinion. This is about you believing everything the Telegraph writes, fact of fiction, as long it's confirming your own beliefs on how wrong and evil the EU is. As I said, I don't have problems with euroscepticism, as long as it's based on facts instead of on "the EU bullied Slovakia into signing"-like pub talk.

Originally Posted by Aygo

I personally believe that there's no such thing as "democratic socialism". That's only a way to imply that other/real socialist parties/movements are not democratic.

Indeed. Socialism being somehow inherently undemocratic is a widespread misconception. If we're going to take East Germany and the Soviet Union as standards and say that they prove that socialism is undemocratic, we might as well take Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile and say that they prove right-wing ideology is inherently dictatorial. That's just selective statistics.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

Indeed. Socialism being somehow inherently undemocratic is a widespread misconception. If we're going to take East Germany and the Soviet Union as standards and say that they prove that socialism is undemocratic,

And even then, these countries were never really socialist in nature.

[Aygo]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

This doesn't have anything to do with my political opinion. This is about you believing everything the Telegraph writes, fact of fiction, as long it's confirming your own beliefs on how wrong and evil the EU is. As I said, I don't have problems with euroscepticism, as long as it's based on facts instead of on "the EU bullied Slovakia into signing"-like pub talk.


Indeed. Socialism being somehow inherently undemocratic is a widespread misconception. If we're going to take East Germany and the Soviet Union as standards and say that they prove that socialism is undemocratic, we might as well take Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile and say that they prove right-wing ideology is inherently dictatorial. That's just selective statistics.

What you said reminds me of how western communist parties are treated. Anytime that ideology is inolved in a discussion, there's always the same old non-argument of North Corea, of Cuba and China (knowing that China has a small State presence and is more capitalist than the US itself, today). I can't stand that. I'm not communist but, not only western european communist parties have nothing to do with communism in other parts of the world (the behaviour and life concept don't seem to be the same), but also these parties are very different than what they were in the 1960's and 1970's.
It's not a fair comparison, I think.

[WalkOn21]

A British veto last night paved the way for a "two-speed Europe". Ironically, a two-speed Europe is exactly what the British government said it wanted to avert.

Eurozone countries go it alone with new treaty that excludes Britain

[Aygo]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

A British veto last night paved the way for a "two-speed Europe". Ironically, a two-speed Europe is exactly what the British government said it wanted to avert.

Eurozone countries go it alone with new treaty that excludes Britain

This present summit is, for me, the confirmation that the "Merkozy" directory is an authentic kamikaze.
The proof of that is there's the rumor that several countries are already buying machinery to print their old currencies again.

I thought that the Euro and the UE would collapse in the end of next year or 2013. Now, I think it'll happen even faster and sooner than what I thought.
Even Helmul Kohl, ancient german chanceler, from Merkel's party, which many mistakes (okay, but), recently said that she's ruining Europe and very fast.

Most people have no idea and are not aware of what's really happening, they only have the impression that they're going to get a little poorer, which is not real, because, not only we'll all going to get poorer, but since this sistem will implode, internal conflicts may happen again. And Europe is equal to itself as we all know.

[WalkOn21]

Originally Posted by Aygo

The proof of that is there's the rumor that several countries are already buying machinery to print their old currencies again.

How can a rumour ever be proof?

[Aygo]

Originally Posted by WalkOn21

How can a rumour ever be proof?

Okay, bad english. I reformulate the sentence:

«There's the rumor that several countries are already buying machinery to print their old currencies again and this may justify the imminent collapse of the system because of these suicidal decisions»

[financeguy]

With one little word, Prime Minister David Cameron breaks the European taboo - Telegraph

[the iron horse]

A thought, I thought, I would add to this discussion on Europe and it's current
crisis.



"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

~Margaret Thatcher

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

A thought, I thought, I would add to this discussion on Europe and it's current
crisis.



"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

~Margaret Thatcher

Good and timely quote. Thatcher always suspected the EU of being an essentially a socialist project. Can't say I disagree with her.

[Aygo]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

A thought, I thought, I would add to this discussion on Europe and it's current
crisis.



"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

~Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher said many good and bad things. Like this.

I truly believe that almost all ideology-based-systems as socialism, social-democracy, christian/orthodox-democracy, ecologism, neo-communism, etc., can be good and can result if applied for the people, not against the people and if has a good finantial plan.

Did Thatcher remember too what she did to the heavy indistries of the UK in the 1980's?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Aygo

Did Thatcher remember too what she did to the heavy indistries of the UK in the 1980's?

That is one narrative. Another is that by refusing to co-operate with the changes that were so sorely needed, the unions caused the demise of heavy industry in the UK.