8 ms·

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

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...

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...