3 ms·

>Varoufakis would write that. He failed to negotiate anything for Greece. My reading of the situation was European politicians wanted to help Greece They absol

>Varoufakis would write that. He failed to negotiate anything for Greece. My reading of the situation was European politicians wanted to help Greece They absolutely did not. They were not planning on granting any kind of debt relief or letting Greece escape from the Eurozone and they still don't. >He should have taken a conciliatory approach. That's called Pasok. It's what Pasok did. If the voters wanted Pasok again they would have elected Pasok again. Pasok was defeated in a landslide because the approach you just advocated was an unmitigated failure. Syriza won because Syriza promised not to be Pasok. Syriza's approach didn't work either of course, because realistically nothing is going to help them short of the dissolution of the Eurozone or something equally unlikely like a communist takeover of the European Commission. Pretending that conciliation was going to get them anywhere given that 7 years of it had done nothing of the sort is disingenuous in the extreme.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> That's called Pasok. It's what Pasok did. If the voters wanted Pasok again they would have elected Pasok again. Pasok was defeated in a landslide because the approach you just advocated was an unmitigated failure. Syriza won because Syriza promised not to be Pasok. Actually, it's obvious that a large part of Syriza's majority in the 2015 elections came from former PASOK voters, still in complete denial about the realities of the financial crisis, latching on to Tsipras as the champion of the status quo, with his promises of debt relief and protection of pensions and public sector jobs; promises that were, of course, empty. In a sense, voters very much did elect PASOK again. As to PASOK's conciliatory approach- both the two "big parties" (PASOK before the fall and New Democracy) are middle-of-the-road moderates with the political courage of a wet noodle. Giorgaki's Papandreou PASOK and Antonis Samaras' ND both simply bent over and accepted the Troica's memorandum without so much as a squeak. Syriza simply made a lot more noise- but then followed the same route and all the thrashing and flailing only helped to make the situation worse. You say Syriza had no chance. Sure- because they are incompetent. A skilled negotiator would have at the very least stood a chance to minimise the damage. The Europeans were at the table- they weren't there to fool around. They crushed us because we were fooling around. In 2015, Greece was already deep in the shit, then Syriza came along and they managed to fuck up the fuckup even worse.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >You say Syriza had no chance. Sure- because they are incompetent. A skilled negotiator would have at the very least stood a chance to minimise the damage. With what leverage??? A skilled negotiator with no cards to play is no better than an unskilled negotiator with no cards to play. The ECB had the capability and willingness to turn off the Greek economy at will (and actually did, for a few days, as a shot across the bows by cutting ELA). They simply had nothing to counter that trump card so they folded. You can't run a country which has no functioning payments system. I've heard every idea for any approach they could have taken to deal with the debt crisis and they're all either illegal under EU law or would require the consent of an intransigent EU. Leaving the Eurozone wasn't an option. Default wasn't an option. The only choice was "economic cataclysm" or "bend to the whims of the Troika". >they managed to fuck up the fuckup even worse. It's hard to argue that they fucked up when their hands were so tightly bound and there was a gun to their heads.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    It is important to understand that a negotiation is not the same as a trade. You don't always have to give something tangible to get something back. Very often, negotiations proceed on points of emotion, or morality, alone. An appeal to justice, mercy, friendship etc, is often just as effective as a promise of a big material reward. For example, the EU did not want to be seen as ruthlessly crushing the Greeks for no reason at all and would have probably taken any reasonable demand seriously. Unfortunately, Varoufakis' grandstanding gave them a jolly good reason to antagonise us without guilt, or at the very least removed any possibility that any demands of ours could be presented to the other member states' electorates as reasoned, or just. In any case, one does not go to the negotiating table after having systematically disparaged the other side as villains, like Syriza did, and expect a positive result. See where Brexit negotiations are now, after years of British politicians blaming the EU for everything. Like I say above, there was (and is) goodwill in the EU about Greece. Many people have expressed their dismay at the treatment of the country by the Troika. What's more important, as others have said, the IMF was very strongly for debt relief. And like you say yourself, we had already suffered under austerity for a few years and it was clear it was not doing anything for growth or our prospects to repay our debt. There was a case to be made in our favour. For sure, there was not a whole lot to go on. But that's why I say "a skilled negotiator" was needed. Tsipras and Varoufakis were nothing of the sort.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> That's called Pasok. It's what Pasok did. If the voters wanted Pasok again they would have elected Pasok again. Pasok was defeated in a landslide because the approach you just advocated was an unmitigated failure. Syriza won because Syriza promised not to be Pasok. Actually, it's obvious that a large part of Syriza's majority in the 2015 elections came from former PASOK voters, still in complete denial about the realities of the financial crisis, latching on to Tsipras as the champion of the status quo, with his promises of debt relief and protection of pensions and public sector jobs; promises that were, of course, empty. In a sense, voters very much did elect PASOK again. As to PASOK's conciliatory approach- both the two "big parties" (PASOK before the fall and New Democracy) are middle-of-the-road moderates with the political courage of a wet noodle. Giorgaki's Papandreou PASOK and Antonis Samaras' ND both simply bent over and accepted the Troica's memorandum without so much as a squeak. Syriza simply made a lot more noise- but then followed the same route and all the thrashing and flailing only helped to make the situation worse. You say Syriza had no chance. Sure- because they are incompetent. A skilled negotiator would have at the very least stood a chance to minimise the damage. The Europeans were at the table- they weren't there to fool around. They crushed us because we were fooling around. In 2015, Greece was already deep in the shit, then Syriza came along and they managed to fuck up the fuckup even worse.

crdoconnor 8y ago
>You say Syriza had no chance. Sure- because they are incompetent. A skilled negotiator would have at the very least stood a chance to minimise the damage. With what leverage??? A skilled negotiator with no cards to play is no better than an unskilled negotiator with no cards to play. The ECB had the capability and willingness to turn off the Greek economy at will (and actually did, for a few days, as a shot across the bows by cutting ELA). They simply had nothing to counter that trump card so they folded. You can't run a country which has no functioning payments system. I've heard every idea for any approach they could have taken to deal with the debt crisis and they're all either illegal under EU law or would require the consent of an intransigent EU. Leaving the Eurozone wasn't an option. Default wasn't an option. The only choice was "economic cataclysm" or "bend to the whims of the Troika". >they managed to fuck up the fuckup even worse. It's hard to argue that they fucked up when their hands were so tightly bound and there was a gun to their heads.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  It is important to understand that a negotiation is not the same as a trade. You don't always have to give something tangible to get something back. Very often, negotiations proceed on points of emotion, or morality, alone. An appeal to justice, mercy, friendship etc, is often just as effective as a promise of a big material reward. For example, the EU did not want to be seen as ruthlessly crushing the Greeks for no reason at all and would have probably taken any reasonable demand seriously. Unfortunately, Varoufakis' grandstanding gave them a jolly good reason to antagonise us without guilt, or at the very least removed any possibility that any demands of ours could be presented to the other member states' electorates as reasoned, or just. In any case, one does not go to the negotiating table after having systematically disparaged the other side as villains, like Syriza did, and expect a positive result. See where Brexit negotiations are now, after years of British politicians blaming the EU for everything. Like I say above, there was (and is) goodwill in the EU about Greece. Many people have expressed their dismay at the treatment of the country by the Troika. What's more important, as others have said, the IMF was very strongly for debt relief. And like you say yourself, we had already suffered under austerity for a few years and it was clear it was not doing anything for growth or our prospects to repay our debt. There was a case to be made in our favour. For sure, there was not a whole lot to go on. But that's why I say "a skilled negotiator" was needed. Tsipras and Varoufakis were nothing of the sort.