The average Slovakian pension is around 300 Euros a month while the average Greek pension is around 1200 Euros a month. It is little wonder therefore that Slovakia has voted No to a Greek bailout, bringing forward the real risk and probable inevitability of Greece defaulting on its loans.
As togetherly as I would like to be with Greece’s problems, I can’t help but wonder why we are throwing good money after bad at this issue. The solution to Greece and the Euro’s ills is not to pour more money into a broken system but rather to force Greece’s creditors, and the creditors of those creditors, to take a material haircut on what is owed to them and allow Greece to breathe again.
I forget the precise figure but the percentage of its outgoings that Greece spends on interest alone is eye-watering. A cut in liabilities would help significantly get Greece back to something of an equilibrium. That’s the deal that needs to happen, not putting money into Greece that will end up in banks’ largely well-capitalised pockets. That is a continuation of the short term gain outlook that banks are struggling to shake off, the something for nothing fast buck culture that Ed Miliband rightly railed against at Labour Conference.
Companies with big pockets backed the wrong horse with Greece and, like all gambling (for that’s what we’re dealing with here), they need to just take the hit.
It often takes the little guy to stand up to the big guys and in the EU they don’t come much littler than Slovakia. Good on them.
#1 by Robbie Pennington on October 12, 2011 - 1:16 pm
I’m thrilled to be able to agree whole-heartedly with Jeff!!!
#2 by Jeff on October 12, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Not as thrilled as I am Robbie! Finally, we made it….
#3 by Doug Daniel on October 12, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Wait Jeff, are you seriously suggesting that a small nation of just over 5 million people, which has been independent for under two decades, has somehow managed to make its voice heard within the EU?
Ridiculous. Haven’t you heard Jeff? Only countries the size of the UK can have an impact on decisions in Europe. If anything, this is proof that Slovakia is too wee, too poor and too stupid, and should beg the Czech Republic to reform Czechoslovakia instantly.
Ahem. On a less sarcastic unionist-baiting note, you’re quite right about Greece being the wrong horse. The whole financial crisis has been because of banks etc not understanding that not all risks pay off – hence why they’re called “risks”. Financial corporations spent years effectively putting “everything on black”, seemingly under the mistaken notion that you get your stake back (at least) when it comes up red. Economies will not get back to some sort of equilibrium until we start appreciating this and playing by the rules again.
#4 by Jeff on October 12, 2011 - 1:48 pm
Agree with your comment Doug, top and bottom.
Incidentally, I wonder how Scotland would play this if it was independent and did have the power of veto. I daresay the political pressure on whoever the PM would be would be unbearable.
And, incidentally, Slovakia are very likely to vote Yes to this on Thursday as a party in favour abstained just to bring down the Government (nice to be principled about these things, hey?)
#5 by Angus McLellan on October 13, 2011 - 12:56 am
Depends on the PM, no? But given the EU membership dues – half a billion a year or thereabouts most likely – I’d think whoever it was would have the right to be bloody-minded fairly often.
#6 by James on October 12, 2011 - 1:49 pm
I fear they will be told to vote again until they get the right answer. But it’s a small step towards not throwing billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the insatiable maw of the markets.
#7 by ReasonableNat on October 12, 2011 - 2:03 pm
Not that it really matters – but it certainly got them heard 🙂
#8 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 12, 2011 - 2:18 pm
There was as much internal politics in that vote as there was EU politics.
The leader of the opposition was in favour of a yes vote but chose to destabilise the government instead which he has achieved. There will be a yes vote but not a forced one.
#9 by Jeff on October 12, 2011 - 2:50 pm
Yep, they did it for the wrong reasons, but they were still right to say no.
#10 by DougtheDug on October 12, 2011 - 2:22 pm
I can’t help but wonder why we are throwing good money after bad at this issue. The solution to Greece and the Euro’s ills is not to pour more money into a broken system but rather to force Greece’s creditors, and the creditors of those creditors, to take a material haircut on what is owed to them and allow Greece to breathe again.
You don’t understand why Governments are throwing money into Greece. If Greece goes down then a lot of banks in these very Governments will crash or as you say, “take a very bad haircut”.
What the Governments are doing is ensuring that their Banks survive at the expense of the taxpayer, it’s nothing to do with misplaced altruism.
“…putting money into Greece that will end up in banks’ largely well-capitalised pockets.”, is exactly the name of the game.
#11 by GMcM on October 12, 2011 - 2:26 pm
Just to make you aware – the only reason this was a NO vote was because it had a confidence motion attached to it. The junior coalition party voted no for the reasons you suggest but the leftist opposition party (Smer)actually support the proposal; they only voted no so that the government would be brought down. They will support the bill when it comes back before Parliament this Thursday or early next week.
This had nothing to do with a small nation making an international statement – it was all about internal politics. Smer have taken a calculated risk; knowing that they could bring down the government and force an election while still supporting the bailout.
Wreckless and cavalier attitude to the situation from Smer but it may result in their party taking control of Parliament.
#12 by GMcM on October 12, 2011 - 2:29 pm
Sorry Jeff – hadn’t read the comments when I posted this. I see you already touched on it.
I still think it’s an important point to make and shows the real politics behind this decision – not about a small country making an international statement.
Obviously some will want to see it that way though.
Apologies again for repeating what you said.
#13 by Doug Daniel on October 12, 2011 - 4:15 pm
“I still think it’s an important point to make and shows the real politics behind this decision – not about a small country making an international statement.
Obviously some will want to see it that way though.”
In regards to the “too wee” point, the fact is one of the favourite unionist arguments against independence is that Scotland would have no voice as a small, independent country in the EU, and as a result should remain in the UK where it can have massive influence on Europe (as long as our interests are the same as the South-East of England’s). Regardless of their reasons for doing so, Slovakia have just demonstrated what those in the independence camp knew all along: that this particular argument is absolute tosh.
A small voice is better than no voice at all.
#14 by Ken on October 12, 2011 - 4:29 pm
“A small voice is better than no voice at all.”
Except that in this case, as in all the other cases where the EU member state wasn’t a major economic player, this type of ‘voice’ serves nothing but domestic / internal chest puffing as the end result will be a ‘pro EU’ passing of the legislation. A small voice that is silenced for the ‘greater good’.
An independent Scotland within the EU (euro in this example) would be told by the French, Germans and, Italians to toe the line. And an independent Scotland would do so in the end. So probably not the best example to use in a pro-independence argument!
#15 by Jeff on October 12, 2011 - 4:54 pm
Hmm, fair point. And given the EU would presumably be holding RBS by the short and curlies, I suspect our Scottish Prime Minister would be amongst the first to roll over and play ball.
#16 by Doug Daniel on October 12, 2011 - 4:54 pm
Whereas currently, that voice is silenced before it gets anywhere near the EU, unless it meets the needs of the “greater good” of the UK as a whole as well.
Of course, in cases where an independent Scotland and the rUK were of the same opinion, they would be able to join forces, and would be a stronger voice as two independent nations standing together than we are currently. Scotland has nothing to lose either way, really.
#17 by Ken on October 12, 2011 - 5:08 pm
“Whereas currently, that voice is silenced before it gets anywhere near the EU, unless it meets the needs of the “greater good†of the UK as a whole as well.”
Poor attitude as this becomes not about the principle, but only the internal political parties fluffing up their populist poll numbers on a temporary basis by bashing the EU / Euro / Europe / them over there.
“Of course, in cases where an independent Scotland and the rUK were of the same opinion, they would be able to join forces, and would be a stronger voice as two independent nations standing together than we are currently.”
Not if Scotland was in the euro, and the rUK wasn’t. Scotland would be on it’s own. If you mean a broader (non-euro) issue, then I wouldn’t count on it. The rUK will be looking out for itself first and foremost – as soon as it gets what it wants – you’re on your own. It has increasingly only wanted limited dealing with the EU / institutions in a variety of areas (Justice and Home Affairs, Enlargement/Accession issues re Schengen, ENP et al). An independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to count on the rUK standing beside it in any issue that wasn’t directly beneficial to the rUK. Dangerous game to play if that’s an argument in favour of independence as it raises questions like “Do we have to give something to the rUK in return to support our position in Europe?”
#18 by Doug Daniel on October 12, 2011 - 7:04 pm
“BANG! BANG! BANG!”
That’s my head hitting a brick wall there, it’s slightly less painful than trying to make myself clearer.
“Poor attitude as this becomes not about the principle, but only the internal political parties fluffing up their populist poll numbers on a temporary basis by bashing the EU / Euro / Europe / them over there.”
What? Who said anything about bashing the EU? I’m talking about Scotland only having its voice heard if it’s saying the same thing as England. I would actually expect an independent Scotland to be far more pragmatic in terms of its EU dealings than the UK currently is.
‘An independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to count on the rUK standing beside it in any issue that wasn’t directly beneficial to the rUK. Dangerous game to play if that’s an argument in favour of independence as it raises questions like “Do we have to give something to the rUK in return to support our position in Europe?‒
You’re completely missing my point. I’m not on about Scotland relying on the rUK vote, I’m just saying that there would be a larger combined voice on the occasions where both countries held the same opinion. If the rUK position was different from Scotland’s, then so what? All that means is that we would still have our voice in Europe – whereas under the current structure, we’re silenced as our needs are less important that the wider UK needs.
It’s really quite a simple premise.
#19 by Ken on October 12, 2011 - 7:51 pm
“What? Who said anything about bashing the EU?.”
To clarify, I meant small EU member states know they will bow to the power of the larger economic powers, but within their political sphere, some parties will use it for populist rabble rousing -“EU bashing / loss of sovereignty / independent blah” – increasing their popularity domestically before falling in line (as can be seen in this exact example of Slovakia. Also in Ireland. Also in Finland). The UK doesn’t bow to this pressure as it’s weighty enough in broader EU fiscal matters. Scotland potentially on it’s own… not so much. That’s all I meant.
“You’re completely missing my point. I’m not on about Scotland relying on the rUK vote, I’m just saying that there would be a larger combined voice on the occasions where both countries held the same opinion. If the rUK position was different from Scotland’s, then so what? All that means is that we would still have our voice in Europe – whereas under the current structure, we’re silenced as our needs are less important that the wider UK needs.”
Combined voice? That doesn’t matter when you’re talking about issues requiring unanimity – as in again, this exact matter – where one country saying ‘no’ creates chaos. (Netherlands no for the EU Constitutional Treaty; Ireland no for Nice and Lisbon Treaties; Finland threatening no for this fiscal bailout; Slovakia the same) My point is, in such issues (like this one) Scotland counting on a Member State to back you up against say, the French and Germans, wielding influence against them is much easier if it’s the UK supporting your position than if it’s Estonia supporting you. If an independent Scotland doesn’t have the support of a larger economic powerhouse in the EU – then your ‘voice in Europe’ means diddly for these matters.
“That’s my head hitting a brick wall there, it’s slightly less painful than trying to make myself clearer.”
Then I suggest an evening away from the laptop. I’m talking about this current financial situation involving the euro, and the impact of ‘small independent EU members’ against the bigger ones for issues requiring unanimity.
#20 by Ken on October 12, 2011 - 2:37 pm
Hold on a tick. They certainly didn’t do it out of principle, to draw a line in the sand for the ‘little guy’ , for the poor, or to stand up against throwing bad money after worse in criticism of the Greek situation.
The majority of the 150 MPs are still pro-EU and pro-Euro – including the governing coalition AND the main opposition party . It failed because of the small neo-liberal “Freedom and Solidarity Party” wanted to make headlines and refused to budge (In the election resulting from their position, they’ll be now looking to pick up extra seats). Seeing that, the previous PM (Fico) and his main opposition party saw an opportunity to stick the knife into the current fragile governing coalition – despite the fact he stated “The ratification of the EFSF is a priority. Slovakia has to ratify the EFSF…”
It wasn’t that the parliament voted against the package, it’s that the majority didn’t turn up to vote – the measure was 55 MPs in favour, and 9 against. The rest (including Fico’s 62 opposition MPs) abstained.
Just your run of the mill politicking – nothing about principle I’m afraid 🙂
#21 by GMcM on October 12, 2011 - 5:04 pm
“A small voice is better than no voice at all”
By that you are implying that at present we have no voice on the international stage. THIS is a favourite argument of the nationalists.
I’m not doubting that you have, because I believe there will be idiots out there who believe so, met people who have used the ‘unionist’ argument you refer to, however I have never met anyone who has made that argument.
I have heard people saying that Scotland would have a weaker/smaller voice than we have currently.
What you say, as quoted above, implies that we have no voice currently. That is clearly not the case and is an example of the nationalist tactic to portray Scotland as some opressed little nation that is being held back and our voices silenced.
Strangely, nationalists accuse those who argue in favour of the union of calling Scotland too wee, too poor and too stupid (and it doesn’t matter what legitimate concerns are raised this tired little line comes out) yet at the same time nationalists talk down what we can achieve within the union. It would be easy for non-nationalists to accuse nationalists of saying Scotland is too wee, etc etc to play a part in the UK.
We are a strong nation with great skills and resources and not only can we have a major say in UK politics but we can use our position within the union (as we have for many years) to affect change on a worldwide scale.
#22 by Doug Daniel on October 12, 2011 - 7:52 pm
“What you say, as quoted above, implies that we have no voice currently. That is clearly not the case and is an example of the nationalist tactic to portray Scotland as some opressed little nation that is being held back and our voices silenced.”
“Clearly” not the case? It can’t be that clear if there are so many of us out here thinking it IS the case. Are you saying that Westminster would adopt the Scottish position, even if this conflicted with the wider UK’s position on something? Somehow, I can’t see it.
“not only can we have a major say in UK politics”
Yeah, cos that worked in May 2010, didn’t it? How can Scotland have a major say in UK politics when our votes don’t even count for anything?
“we can use our position within the union (as we have for many years) to affect change on a worldwide scale.”
This is the same nonsense Ruth Davidson was coming out with on here a few weeks ago, and that is currently doing the rounds as the unionist “positive” reason for the existence of the union. What does it even mean? What change has the UK affected on the world since the Empire started dissolving? And if you can answer that, then in what way could this not have been done as the rUK and Scotland working alongside each other?
#23 by GMcM on October 13, 2011 - 9:10 am
It IS clear. The problem you have is that you don’t want to see it as it doesn’t fit with your argument for independence. It undermines that argument, so rather than use what are the real facts with regards Scotland’s position in the union and change your argument, you would rather dismiss anything that contradicts your view regardless of the merits of that argument.
Here’s something for you to ponder – to paraphrase you:
“Are you saying that the EU would adopt the Scottish position, even if this conflicted with the wider EU’s position on something?”
#24 by Indy on October 13, 2011 - 8:11 am
We don’t have a voice on the international stage. That’s just a fact.
Let’s take an actual example. The application made by Palestine to the UN.
If Scotland had a voice I have no doubt we would support the recognition of Palestine, since the majority of current MSPs would support it (and I include Labour members in that).
Would that make a huge amount of difference to the international situation? No probably not. But it could make some difference and at least we would be saying what we believe. Even you must acknowledge there is some merit in that.
#25 by GMcM on October 13, 2011 - 9:18 am
“We don’t have a voice on the international stage. That’s just a fact.”
You may wish it but it doesn’t make it so.
It’s your opinion and that is all. I completely disagree with your opinion on that as I believe (and history will show you) that we have played a major part in UK politics for many many years.
“At least we would be saying what we believe.”
What if an independent Scotland thought the same as rUK on the Palestine issue and you think your voice was being silenced; what would your argument be then?
The Central Belt (or insert any other area of Scotland) should become Independent of the rest of the country?
#26 by Barbarian on October 12, 2011 - 7:29 pm
The whole EU is a charade, and be thankful we weren’t independent before it was set up because you can guarantee if we were in, we’d be forking out a helluva lot of money for a country (ie Greece) that doesn’t even collect basic taxes properly, let alone high earners. Why? Because no doubt the politicians would have seen membership as a good thing and had us sucked right in.
The current issues with the EU are going to be very influential when it comes to the referendum, since voters will want to know how things would be if independent.
My current view is that most people would reject joining another union simply to bail out other members.
#27 by Nikostratos on October 12, 2011 - 9:06 pm
jeff
well if you lived in the real world (like me) you would know Slovakia has more citzens outside their nation working in other parts of the EU and most would never consider going back to a ‘Medieval ‘ country (as a few slovaks have told me)
jeff do yerself a favour go and live there for a while experience will open yer eyes it wont be a good one
#28 by Observer on October 12, 2011 - 11:38 pm
If we can get back to what I think was the point, then I think an orderly default is what we need to see happening with Greece. This throwing good money after bad is making slaves of the Greeks & enriching the people who caused all the bother in the first place.
I don’t care about the ins & outs of Slovakian politics, I would welcome an intervention from the man on the moon.
The whole thing is bonkers.