12 ms·

That's a really shitty move. >a USB of the conversations he had secretly recorded while attending a Eurogroup discussion in Brussels People in private convers

That's a really shitty move. >a USB of the conversations he had secretly recorded while attending a Eurogroup discussion in Brussels People in private converse completely differently (more freely) than in public. Judging people on what they said there by a public standard (it's impossible that this will not happen) is extremely unfair. Especially since Varoufakis knew that he will be recorded, he has probably chosen his wordings accordingly.

odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. A lot of citizens of a few countries had their lives almost destroyed by the decisions of these politicians, so is only fair they know what was discussed, who defended them, etc. Let us not forget the pressure the ECB (and other european institutions) put on some countries that have come to light after the fact. (Like only allowing emergency liquidity assistance to be used based on bailout conditions, thus interfering and blackmailing supposed sovereign governments) edit: And to be fair, while I don't like Varoufakis, the fact his party wants these recordings to come to light, means there is probably something there are is damning to someone
- tasubotadas 7y ago
  Well, I kinda do not like Varoufakis, because he came off as an entitled know-it-all prick (a not so rare trait in academia). He made lots of bold claims but in the end, nothing really got accomplished. EDIT: Regarding the fact that the public deserves to know, I disagree. The public can act completely irrationally against its own interests under FUD (I guess we have some recent examples from the UK and the US), and in a lot of cases, they are better off not knowing. That's why you elect representatives (that will get into all the details of the problem) and place your trust in them. If you do not trust you representatives - do not elect them. [1] https://www.cityam.com/greece-s-golden-boy-and-his-tragic-fall-grace/ https://www.cityam.com/greece-s-golden-boy-and-his-tragic-fa... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U4U7M4WOPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U4U7M4WOPU
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    > The public can act completely irrationally against its own interests under FUD (I guess we have some recent examples from the UK and the US), and in a lot of cases, they are better off not knowing. FUD comes exactly out of not knowing. The more obscure the workings and negotiation of power are, the more mystique they hold and the more chances for spin they have. Democracy is not and must not be limited to choosing your representative once every four years - it should be a living system of dialogue, where you constantly offer feedback and hear back from your representative (not saying it has to be personal). This is the only way to build trust and have a responsive system.
  - sgift 7y ago
    > Regarding the fact that the public deserves to know, I disagree. The public can act completely irrationally against its own interests under FUD (I guess we have some recent examples from the UK and the US), and in a lot of cases, they are better off not knowing Can you please clarify if I misunderstood you: You argue that people shouldn't know the truth, because when someone lies to them they act against their own interests?
  - atmosx 7y ago
    > He made lots of bold claims but in the end, nothing really got accomplished. Depends on the perspective I guess. I believe he accomplished a lot, as he raised the awareness on how the EU is run indirectly by an unaccountable group of politicians serving specific interests. It's no small feat.
- CarelessExpert 7y ago
  > While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. I honestly don't think it's that simple. While decisions should always be public, in order to come to reasonable compromises on issues, it can be valuable for leaders to be able to have closed-door conversations outside of the spotlight, where they don't have to engage in political grandstanding; after all, it's that kind of compromise that allows democratic systems to function. In fact, I would make the claim that at least one reason why the US democratic system has become so utterly paralyzed by polarization is because so much of political debate is now happening in the spotlight of social media, instead of behind closed doors where politicians can have the more nuanced conversations that might displease an electorate that is too busy cheering for their team to worry about actually getting anything done. That's not to say this isn't without peril. Behind closed doors, corruption might happen as easily as compromise. I'm just not convinced the risks outweighs the benefits.
  - selectiveshift 7y ago
    If only political grandstanding wasn’t necessary and we could have nuanced discussions in public.
  - odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
    When these discussions impact so many people (various countries affected) I don't believe they should be kept secret. Lets (just for example, I am not saying it happened), during that meeting, the German/French Finance minister said: 'I don't care about the Greek people, we can't let German/French banks fall, so do what you must if you ever want the ECB to lend you money'. Wouldn't the greek people deserve to know and make up their mind about their part in the EU project? (again, I am not saying this happened, but I can see similar backdoor deals being put forward) Lets not forget that any opposition to the EU project by the citizens is seen as misinformed or misleded people. It is never the EU's fault [1] [1] - https://torrentfreak.com/eu-commission-portrays-article-13-opponents-as-a-misled-and-misinformed-mob-190215/ https://torrentfreak.com/eu-commission-portrays-article-13-o... (Sorry, no time to search for other source, but the comments were also published in my local newspapers)
- iSnow 7y ago
  >While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. The decisions, yes. But not recordings of every brainfart of every participant. >means there is probably something there are is damning to someone Probably. At least something that can be spun to be damning. However, I do not subscribe to the view that the end justifies the means. We live in times where every bad joke by a member of the elites is twisted into an outrage, and not too much good comes off this.
- xkemp 7y ago
  People in this thread seem to mostly not even consider the value that the ability to (sometimes) speak privately has. As an analogy: would you want your spouse (and vice versa) to hear recording of every conversation you have, including those with close friends/therapists/rabbis etc? It's not completely absurd to say yes to that question. But it's notable that such a relationship would be a departure from established norms, and that most people feel even healthy and strong relationships profit from the ability to occasionally seek advice or blow of steam in confidentiality.
  - odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
    First, we can't really compare that to elected officials. But even so, yeah, I would like to know if my spouse is talking with her friends/therapists/whatever about stealing all my money and screwing my best friend while they hire an hitman to off me. Exaggeration? Yes, but Greece got royally fucked with the Troika 'medicine', so yes, the people should know what led them to that place, and who fought for and against them.
- netcan 7y ago
  It gets tricky. If people always have this right, then closed doors are basically not allowed. That's just not really workable.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. I completely disagree. We should expect these meetings to be held in a manner where participants should not be pressured away from doing the right thing due to concerns on how what they might say behind closed doors could be used as a political weapon to attack them. This asshole move from Varoufakis is a clear example, because this leak is designed to attack any political opponent that didn't simply rolled over to meet his personal demands. This whole stunt is even more egregious if we consider that this boils down to a self-promotion stunt from someone desperately grabbing at their spotlight to manage to get some attention.
  - FabHK 7y ago
    Other interpretations are possible, though. As Varoufakis has laid out clearly in his book, he believed at the time to have a better alternative at hand (better for the people of Greek, and better for the people of Europe; worse for some banks and creditors).
    - rumanator 7y ago
      > As Varoufakis has laid out clearly in his book His personal account of what he decides to claim and express, particularly the part where he chose to portray himself as both the Savior and the sole victim of everything, including his political party, is not exactly an accurate view of historical events. His own account of his role on Greece's referendum is enough to understand his personal motivation to come up with his personal story.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jorvi 7y ago
  Greece loaned too much, collected too little taxes (or rather, scamming the tax man was and is an integral part of daily life there) and had extremely generous pension plans and ages. They hired Goldman Sachs to hide all this by cooking the books so they could join the EU. I have zero sympathy for the Greek and 'destroying a country for the decisions made by the elite doesn't count when you vote for those castle-in-the-sky promising elite year after year. Greece it's bill was simply due, and the myth of 'poor little Greece bullied by stringent North Europe' needs to die.
  - mpax 7y ago
    You might do well reading up on the last couple of centuries of Greek history...
ninjamayo 7y ago
what happened afterwards to Greece is also pretty shitty
- tasubotadas 7y ago
  What happened? It's a success story. I get that people do not like the fact that they can't retire now at 55yo or that they had to privatize a few big national companies, but I think it's a perfect example where the doctor knows better than the patient what's best for them.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jokoon 7y ago
    Amputating a limb or surviving chemotherapy is hardly a success story, especially when the operation is hardly over yet. What happened to greece was a disaster. Of course it required to be handled by adults, and they did what was necessary. But the whole thing is hardly "a success story".
  - odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
    do you live in greece by chance? I don't, but the friends I have there don't consider it a success story. Maybe it is nice they got a surplus now (after 10 years!) but during those 10 years a lot of suffering and pain to their population. Even the IMF has admitted it was a bad prescription (1) [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22791248 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22791248
  - alexsideris 7y ago
    > It's a success story. Haha! That was a good one.
    - Ygg2 7y ago
      Hey man, it was a success story. For Germany. First their banks are salvaged. Then they get infusion of cheap Greek labor. It's a win-win.
me_me_me 7y ago
I think same standards should be used when police records criminals, judging criminals on what they said in private by a public standard is extremely unfair to them. What about watergate was that unfair too? Sure if he was leaking offhand sexual preferences of people recorded he would be crossing a line, but somehow I doubt that's what will be leaked.
- Bartweiss 7y ago
  This is why the whole idea of "in the public interest" exists. If a reporter received these same recordings in the mail, they would quite likely publish them. If they received a recording of a random person discussing their medical concerns, publishing that would be an outrageous breach of ethics. (Hence the Gawker/Thiel debacle also. When Ted Haggard was caught having gay extramarital affairs, it was considered fit for publication because he was an evangelical preacher fighting against gay marriage. When a random private individual is outed, its not a public interest matter and can be libelous even when accurate. Thiel fell somewhere in between under both legal and journalistic rules, so we got a debate.) I'm pretty baffled to see the parent comment imply that private discussions between politicians should inherently be kept secret. We could discuss specific news stories, reporters who violate attribution rules, and whether Varoufakis was bound by privacy laws or Eurogroup confidentiality rules. We could even argue the publication is in the public interest, and yet makes Varoufakis unfit to serve by destroying his ability to function with trust. But just as you say, treating "that's a private discussion" as the end of matter would excuse Watergate also.
mempko 7y ago
You know what's a shitty move? What the euogroup did to greece and other countries.
- tasubotadas 7y ago
  I grew up in a country that joined the EU and boomed afterwards. We had the same crisis and probably even worse austerity measures than Greece after the 2008 crisis and some politicians are still in a tough spot until this day. In all aspects, Greece was in much better shape before the 2008 crisis than Lithuania. Now Lithuania has a higher GDP per capita than Greece. How did that happen? But never once, anyone in public considered on "asking on forgiving on our debts". It really makes me wonder the audacity of the people that claim it's the Eurogroups fault that they have lent money to Greece. It really makes a difference, when people own up to their future.
  - leto_ii 7y ago
    > Greece was in much better shape before the 2008 crisis than Lithuania. Now Lithuania has a higher GDP per capita than Greece Shouldn't this actually make you wonder whether the Greek austerity was a good idea? > It really makes a difference, when people own up to their future. Why do you think it makes sense to hold millions accountable directly for the corrupt dealings of a few members of a country's elite (and of a few foreign bankers, politicians etc.)?
    - tasubotadas 7y ago
      >Why do you think it makes sense to hold millions accountable directly for the corrupt dealings of a few members of a country's elite (and of a few foreign bankers, politicians etc.)? That's how democracy works. If you are not happy with your current government, elect the one you are happy with. Over time, I've found that the elected government really does represent the general population.
      - leto_ii 7y ago
        In representative democracies people don't really have much control over the day to day operations of the government. They are also often deliberately kept in the dark about the decisions being made. Even if they had the necessary information available, it would be almost impossible to keep up with everything since people have other more important things to do to e.g. work. > Over time, I've found that the elected government really does represent the general population. I don't know where this happens, but if/when it does it's more of a fortunate accident than the default outcome.
leto_ii 7y ago
> People in private converse completely differently (more freely) than in public. We're not talking about private individuals discussing private matters informally here. These are people with great power arguing over the fate of millions. They shouldn't be saying things that they wouldn't want exposed and there is no reason to keep this secret.
- kome 7y ago
  very good points.
- rumanator 7y ago
  Tel that to German and Dutch politicians who were pressured to reject any aid to Greece because of reasons.
DrScientist 7y ago
What if people are presenting a public image that is at odds which what actually happened? Is it then legitimate to call them out? Remember these weren't 'at the bar talking rubbish' kind of conversations, these were extremely serious negotiations in a professional capacity where you would expect people to weigh words carefully.
_jal 7y ago
1) There are almost certainly other recordings of the same meeting. People who regularly attend meetings like this should be well versed in the reality of what goes on. 2) If pols do not fear things like this, they absolutely will abuse the public trust. It always happens. You cannot have meaningful representative government without meaningful information on their actions. 3) In general, support for smokey-back-room politics tends to be related to support for the outcomes of those decisions. It suddenly becomes a collusive outrage when the "wrong" ox is gored.
lucianoq 7y ago
> People in private converse completely differently (more freely) than in public. They are deciding about life and death of people of a country (or many). They're not discussing about what's your favourite food and which sex position you like the most. Those conversation MUST be open and public, so people can judge the work of their delegates and decide to vote them again or not. If you don't want to be heard, don't present yourself as a candidate. There are plenty of roles in companies that are private enough to speak privately. Eurogroup, Ecofin, European Commission, European Central Bank, ESM are secrets just to subtract power from citizens, so to reduce democracy.
- smallnamespace 7y ago
  On the other hand, organizations that are able to keep their internal deliberations private have a strong advantage over ones who must ‘think’ openly. Imagine negotiating with an employer, except your inner monologue is always spoken aloud. One unintended (?) consequence of extreme transparency for governments, is that it makes government ineffective and easily subverted or outmaneuvered by opaque organizations, like corporations and less liberal state actors.
  - leto_ii 7y ago
    > On the other hand, organizations that are able to keep their internal deliberations private have a strong advantage over ones who must ‘think’ openly. I agree, but an advantage over whom exactly? In this case it's simply an advantage of the ruling political and economic elite over European citizens (Greeks especially). There are few instances when things really should be kept secret e.g. during wars, but this was not one of them.
    - thanatropism 7y ago
      But this is a story of European government bodies versus Greek government bodies. You identify SYRIZA with The People too easily. What, Varoufakis is a world-renown professor of game theory. You don’t think he has an agenda? Is it impossible that this agenda clashes against the Good of Greek People?
cafard 7y ago
In Harold Nicholson's lectures on diplomacy, he mentions Woodrow Wilson's advocacy of open diplomacy. At Versailles, Nicholson was amused to find that the Wilson's discussions took place in a room that had a U.S. Marine with fixed bayonet patrolling outside the windows. Nicholson makes the point that the text of agreements should be known when they are made. The discussions that arrive at them, not necessarily.
throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
The fact that only he knew is really the crucial point here. That gives him incredible opportunity to sway the conversation. He also has the ability to cherry-pick which recordings to choose. If you want open talks, they need to be done so with everyone on board.
dependenttypes 7y ago
Why is it a shitty move exactly? Transparency is a good thing.
atoav 7y ago
While I think you're right, that heavily depends on the content of those recordings. On the low end of the scale someone could have used undiplomatic language that with the right media framing could anger a lot of people, without beeing that damning from an objective angle. On the other end however you get things that we might want to know about, e.g. when someone in a high office defends a genocide, or says something so clearly evil that the potential damage of not publishing the recording outweighs every individual right. I am not a fan of Varoufakis, but I could imagine him not taking this decision lightly (otherwise he would have published it way earlier). This points to something closer to the latter category.

odshoifsdhfs 7y ago

While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. A lot of citizens of a few countries had their lives almost destroyed by the decisions of these politicians, so is only fair they know what was discussed, who defended them, etc. Let us not forget the pressure the ECB (and other european institutions) put on some countries that have come to light after the fact. (Like only allowing emergency liquidity assistance to be used based on bailout conditions, thus interfering and blackmailing supposed sovereign governments) edit: And to be fair, while I don't like Varoufakis, the fact his party wants these recordings to come to light, means there is probably something there are is damning to someone

tasubotadas 7y ago
Well, I kinda do not like Varoufakis, because he came off as an entitled know-it-all prick (a not so rare trait in academia). He made lots of bold claims but in the end, nothing really got accomplished. EDIT: Regarding the fact that the public deserves to know, I disagree. The public can act completely irrationally against its own interests under FUD (I guess we have some recent examples from the UK and the US), and in a lot of cases, they are better off not knowing. That's why you elect representatives (that will get into all the details of the problem) and place your trust in them. If you do not trust you representatives - do not elect them. [1] https://www.cityam.com/greece-s-golden-boy-and-his-tragic-fall-grace/ https://www.cityam.com/greece-s-golden-boy-and-his-tragic-fa... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U4U7M4WOPU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U4U7M4WOPU
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  > The public can act completely irrationally against its own interests under FUD (I guess we have some recent examples from the UK and the US), and in a lot of cases, they are better off not knowing. FUD comes exactly out of not knowing. The more obscure the workings and negotiation of power are, the more mystique they hold and the more chances for spin they have. Democracy is not and must not be limited to choosing your representative once every four years - it should be a living system of dialogue, where you constantly offer feedback and hear back from your representative (not saying it has to be personal). This is the only way to build trust and have a responsive system.
- sgift 7y ago
  > Regarding the fact that the public deserves to know, I disagree. The public can act completely irrationally against its own interests under FUD (I guess we have some recent examples from the UK and the US), and in a lot of cases, they are better off not knowing Can you please clarify if I misunderstood you: You argue that people shouldn't know the truth, because when someone lies to them they act against their own interests?
- atmosx 7y ago
  > He made lots of bold claims but in the end, nothing really got accomplished. Depends on the perspective I guess. I believe he accomplished a lot, as he raised the awareness on how the EU is run indirectly by an unaccountable group of politicians serving specific interests. It's no small feat.
CarelessExpert 7y ago
> While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. I honestly don't think it's that simple. While decisions should always be public, in order to come to reasonable compromises on issues, it can be valuable for leaders to be able to have closed-door conversations outside of the spotlight, where they don't have to engage in political grandstanding; after all, it's that kind of compromise that allows democratic systems to function. In fact, I would make the claim that at least one reason why the US democratic system has become so utterly paralyzed by polarization is because so much of political debate is now happening in the spotlight of social media, instead of behind closed doors where politicians can have the more nuanced conversations that might displease an electorate that is too busy cheering for their team to worry about actually getting anything done. That's not to say this isn't without peril. Behind closed doors, corruption might happen as easily as compromise. I'm just not convinced the risks outweighs the benefits.
- selectiveshift 7y ago
  If only political grandstanding wasn’t necessary and we could have nuanced discussions in public.
- odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
  When these discussions impact so many people (various countries affected) I don't believe they should be kept secret. Lets (just for example, I am not saying it happened), during that meeting, the German/French Finance minister said: 'I don't care about the Greek people, we can't let German/French banks fall, so do what you must if you ever want the ECB to lend you money'. Wouldn't the greek people deserve to know and make up their mind about their part in the EU project? (again, I am not saying this happened, but I can see similar backdoor deals being put forward) Lets not forget that any opposition to the EU project by the citizens is seen as misinformed or misleded people. It is never the EU's fault [1] [1] - https://torrentfreak.com/eu-commission-portrays-article-13-opponents-as-a-misled-and-misinformed-mob-190215/ https://torrentfreak.com/eu-commission-portrays-article-13-o... (Sorry, no time to search for other source, but the comments were also published in my local newspapers)
iSnow 7y ago
>While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. The decisions, yes. But not recordings of every brainfart of every participant. >means there is probably something there are is damning to someone Probably. At least something that can be spun to be damning. However, I do not subscribe to the view that the end justifies the means. We live in times where every bad joke by a member of the elites is twisted into an outrage, and not too much good comes off this.
xkemp 7y ago
People in this thread seem to mostly not even consider the value that the ability to (sometimes) speak privately has. As an analogy: would you want your spouse (and vice versa) to hear recording of every conversation you have, including those with close friends/therapists/rabbis etc? It's not completely absurd to say yes to that question. But it's notable that such a relationship would be a departure from established norms, and that most people feel even healthy and strong relationships profit from the ability to occasionally seek advice or blow of steam in confidentiality.
- odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
  First, we can't really compare that to elected officials. But even so, yeah, I would like to know if my spouse is talking with her friends/therapists/whatever about stealing all my money and screwing my best friend while they hire an hitman to off me. Exaggeration? Yes, but Greece got royally fucked with the Troika 'medicine', so yes, the people should know what led them to that place, and who fought for and against them.
netcan 7y ago
It gets tricky. If people always have this right, then closed doors are basically not allowed. That's just not really workable.
rumanator 7y ago
> While what you say is true, the contents of these meetings should be public knowledge. I completely disagree. We should expect these meetings to be held in a manner where participants should not be pressured away from doing the right thing due to concerns on how what they might say behind closed doors could be used as a political weapon to attack them. This asshole move from Varoufakis is a clear example, because this leak is designed to attack any political opponent that didn't simply rolled over to meet his personal demands. This whole stunt is even more egregious if we consider that this boils down to a self-promotion stunt from someone desperately grabbing at their spotlight to manage to get some attention.
- FabHK 7y ago
  Other interpretations are possible, though. As Varoufakis has laid out clearly in his book, he believed at the time to have a better alternative at hand (better for the people of Greek, and better for the people of Europe; worse for some banks and creditors).
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > As Varoufakis has laid out clearly in his book His personal account of what he decides to claim and express, particularly the part where he chose to portray himself as both the Savior and the sole victim of everything, including his political party, is not exactly an accurate view of historical events. His own account of his role on Greece's referendum is enough to understand his personal motivation to come up with his personal story.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
jorvi 7y ago
Greece loaned too much, collected too little taxes (or rather, scamming the tax man was and is an integral part of daily life there) and had extremely generous pension plans and ages. They hired Goldman Sachs to hide all this by cooking the books so they could join the EU. I have zero sympathy for the Greek and 'destroying a country for the decisions made by the elite doesn't count when you vote for those castle-in-the-sky promising elite year after year. Greece it's bill was simply due, and the myth of 'poor little Greece bullied by stringent North Europe' needs to die.
- mpax 7y ago
  You might do well reading up on the last couple of centuries of Greek history...

ninjamayo 7y ago

what happened afterwards to Greece is also pretty shitty

tasubotadas 7y ago
What happened? It's a success story. I get that people do not like the fact that they can't retire now at 55yo or that they had to privatize a few big national companies, but I think it's a perfect example where the doctor knows better than the patient what's best for them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jokoon 7y ago
  Amputating a limb or surviving chemotherapy is hardly a success story, especially when the operation is hardly over yet. What happened to greece was a disaster. Of course it required to be handled by adults, and they did what was necessary. But the whole thing is hardly "a success story".
- odshoifsdhfs 7y ago
  do you live in greece by chance? I don't, but the friends I have there don't consider it a success story. Maybe it is nice they got a surplus now (after 10 years!) but during those 10 years a lot of suffering and pain to their population. Even the IMF has admitted it was a bad prescription (1) [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22791248 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22791248
- alexsideris 7y ago
  > It's a success story. Haha! That was a good one.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    Hey man, it was a success story. For Germany. First their banks are salvaged. Then they get infusion of cheap Greek labor. It's a win-win.

me_me_me 7y ago

I think same standards should be used when police records criminals, judging criminals on what they said in private by a public standard is extremely unfair to them. What about watergate was that unfair too? Sure if he was leaking offhand sexual preferences of people recorded he would be crossing a line, but somehow I doubt that's what will be leaked.

Bartweiss 7y ago
This is why the whole idea of "in the public interest" exists. If a reporter received these same recordings in the mail, they would quite likely publish them. If they received a recording of a random person discussing their medical concerns, publishing that would be an outrageous breach of ethics. (Hence the Gawker/Thiel debacle also. When Ted Haggard was caught having gay extramarital affairs, it was considered fit for publication because he was an evangelical preacher fighting against gay marriage. When a random private individual is outed, its not a public interest matter and can be libelous even when accurate. Thiel fell somewhere in between under both legal and journalistic rules, so we got a debate.) I'm pretty baffled to see the parent comment imply that private discussions between politicians should inherently be kept secret. We could discuss specific news stories, reporters who violate attribution rules, and whether Varoufakis was bound by privacy laws or Eurogroup confidentiality rules. We could even argue the publication is in the public interest, and yet makes Varoufakis unfit to serve by destroying his ability to function with trust. But just as you say, treating "that's a private discussion" as the end of matter would excuse Watergate also.

mempko 7y ago

You know what's a shitty move? What the euogroup did to greece and other countries.

tasubotadas 7y ago
I grew up in a country that joined the EU and boomed afterwards. We had the same crisis and probably even worse austerity measures than Greece after the 2008 crisis and some politicians are still in a tough spot until this day. In all aspects, Greece was in much better shape before the 2008 crisis than Lithuania. Now Lithuania has a higher GDP per capita than Greece. How did that happen? But never once, anyone in public considered on "asking on forgiving on our debts". It really makes me wonder the audacity of the people that claim it's the Eurogroups fault that they have lent money to Greece. It really makes a difference, when people own up to their future.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  > Greece was in much better shape before the 2008 crisis than Lithuania. Now Lithuania has a higher GDP per capita than Greece Shouldn't this actually make you wonder whether the Greek austerity was a good idea? > It really makes a difference, when people own up to their future. Why do you think it makes sense to hold millions accountable directly for the corrupt dealings of a few members of a country's elite (and of a few foreign bankers, politicians etc.)?
  - tasubotadas 7y ago
    >Why do you think it makes sense to hold millions accountable directly for the corrupt dealings of a few members of a country's elite (and of a few foreign bankers, politicians etc.)? That's how democracy works. If you are not happy with your current government, elect the one you are happy with. Over time, I've found that the elected government really does represent the general population.
    - leto_ii 7y ago
      In representative democracies people don't really have much control over the day to day operations of the government. They are also often deliberately kept in the dark about the decisions being made. Even if they had the necessary information available, it would be almost impossible to keep up with everything since people have other more important things to do to e.g. work. > Over time, I've found that the elected government really does represent the general population. I don't know where this happens, but if/when it does it's more of a fortunate accident than the default outcome.

leto_ii 7y ago

> People in private converse completely differently (more freely) than in public. We're not talking about private individuals discussing private matters informally here. These are people with great power arguing over the fate of millions. They shouldn't be saying things that they wouldn't want exposed and there is no reason to keep this secret.

kome 7y ago
very good points.
rumanator 7y ago
Tel that to German and Dutch politicians who were pressured to reject any aid to Greece because of reasons.

DrScientist 7y ago

What if people are presenting a public image that is at odds which what actually happened? Is it then legitimate to call them out? Remember these weren't 'at the bar talking rubbish' kind of conversations, these were extremely serious negotiations in a professional capacity where you would expect people to weigh words carefully.

_jal 7y ago

1) There are almost certainly other recordings of the same meeting. People who regularly attend meetings like this should be well versed in the reality of what goes on. 2) If pols do not fear things like this, they absolutely will abuse the public trust. It always happens. You cannot have meaningful representative government without meaningful information on their actions. 3) In general, support for smokey-back-room politics tends to be related to support for the outcomes of those decisions. It suddenly becomes a collusive outrage when the "wrong" ox is gored.

lucianoq 7y ago

> People in private converse completely differently (more freely) than in public. They are deciding about life and death of people of a country (or many). They're not discussing about what's your favourite food and which sex position you like the most. Those conversation MUST be open and public, so people can judge the work of their delegates and decide to vote them again or not. If you don't want to be heard, don't present yourself as a candidate. There are plenty of roles in companies that are private enough to speak privately. Eurogroup, Ecofin, European Commission, European Central Bank, ESM are secrets just to subtract power from citizens, so to reduce democracy.

smallnamespace 7y ago
On the other hand, organizations that are able to keep their internal deliberations private have a strong advantage over ones who must ‘think’ openly. Imagine negotiating with an employer, except your inner monologue is always spoken aloud. One unintended (?) consequence of extreme transparency for governments, is that it makes government ineffective and easily subverted or outmaneuvered by opaque organizations, like corporations and less liberal state actors.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  > On the other hand, organizations that are able to keep their internal deliberations private have a strong advantage over ones who must ‘think’ openly. I agree, but an advantage over whom exactly? In this case it's simply an advantage of the ruling political and economic elite over European citizens (Greeks especially). There are few instances when things really should be kept secret e.g. during wars, but this was not one of them.
  - thanatropism 7y ago
    But this is a story of European government bodies versus Greek government bodies. You identify SYRIZA with The People too easily. What, Varoufakis is a world-renown professor of game theory. You don’t think he has an agenda? Is it impossible that this agenda clashes against the Good of Greek People?

cafard 7y ago

In Harold Nicholson's lectures on diplomacy, he mentions Woodrow Wilson's advocacy of open diplomacy. At Versailles, Nicholson was amused to find that the Wilson's discussions took place in a room that had a U.S. Marine with fixed bayonet patrolling outside the windows. Nicholson makes the point that the text of agreements should be known when they are made. The discussions that arrive at them, not necessarily.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

The fact that only he knew is really the crucial point here. That gives him incredible opportunity to sway the conversation. He also has the ability to cherry-pick which recordings to choose. If you want open talks, they need to be done so with everyone on board.

dependenttypes 7y ago

Why is it a shitty move exactly? Transparency is a good thing.

atoav 7y ago

While I think you're right, that heavily depends on the content of those recordings. On the low end of the scale someone could have used undiplomatic language that with the right media framing could anger a lot of people, without beeing that damning from an objective angle. On the other end however you get things that we might want to know about, e.g. when someone in a high office defends a genocide, or says something so clearly evil that the potential damage of not publishing the recording outweighs every individual right. I am not a fan of Varoufakis, but I could imagine him not taking this decision lightly (otherwise he would have published it way earlier). This points to something closer to the latter category.