Unbiased pros and cons of EU membership 2 : Are the EU's actions towards Greece undemocratic? Would the UK leaving the EU help or harm Greeks?

Is the EU’s treatment of Greece democratic or not though? Unelected officials from the ‘Troika’ (European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund) were sent to oversee Greek government departments’ spending , with the stipulation that “No unilateral fiscal or other policy actions will be taken by the [Greek] authorities. All measures, legislative or otherwise, taken during the programme period, which may have an impact on banks’ operations, solvency, liquidity or asset quality should be taken in close consultation [with the troika]” (1)

The Greek electorate voted in a party – Syriza – whose manifesto included scrapping EU imposed austerity. Then they were told this would not change the agreements made with the Troika by previous Greek governments.

German and Hungarian government politicians argue that they were representing the electorate of their own countries who were paying for financial support to Greece.

The reality is a lot more complicated than that as Germany benefited most from a free trade zone and single currency with weaker economies like Greece.

Despite myths of Greeks being lazy and tax avoiders, they in fact worked longer average hours than any other country in Europe even before the crisis , with Germans working considerably less hours on average(2) – (3).

And tax avoidance by the very wealthy is hardly something unique to Greece with e.g Switzerland, Luzembourg and the British Channel Islands being notorious tax havens, and many British companies, banks and billionaires avoiding tax in tax havens.

Greeks also had the options of defaulting on their debts and dropping the Euro as a currency and going back to their own currency, so they could issue money themselves, rather than having to ask the European Central Bank to issue them with Euros.

The Syriza Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis favoured at the least threatening to do this, and if necessary, doing. However the Greek government did not do it as the majority of Greeks in polls were against it, fearing that if done during a crisis it would lead to more panic and hyper-inflation.

This is still an option for the Greek government though, if it believes the damage done by EU imposed austerity policies is so bad that the other risks couldn’t be worse.

What there can be no doubt about is that the refusal of the same 50% debt forgiveness that Greece approved for Germany after World War Two, and the austerity policies imposed on Greece are both unfair and completely counter-productive.

Severe austerity cuts on the scale imposed on Greece reduce the size of the economy as a whole by reducing demand for private sector goods and services, reduce growth, and so make paying off any of the debt impossible.

From 2008 on during protests and riots against austerity measures Greek riot police have killed dozens of protesters and rioters, starting with what seems to have been the unprovoked murder of a 15 year old boy by armed police in December 2008 (4).

The EU have demanded that Greece run a budget surplus of 3.5% of GDP by 2018, which is over five times as large as the largest budget surplus that Germany, the strongest economy in the EU has ever had, at 0.6% of GDP in 2015 (5) – (6).

Even the IMF – one part of the Troika – has now said this ridiculous and argues that debt forgiveness and a relaxation of austerity are required for Greece (7).

What they don’t say is that, as Syriza have pointed out, some of the 1 trillion euros of Quantitative Easing money which have been created by the European Central Bank to hand to private banks could be used to pay off much of Greece and Spain’s debt (8) – (9).

Some people would argue that the UK leaving the EU could lead to the collapse of the EU and that this would free Greece from EU austerity policies.

However some Greeks, like Yanis Varoufakis,  a leading critic of EU austerity policies, want the UK to stay in as an ally for reform , arguing that if the EU splits up the result will be chaos and panic, which will be even worse for Greece (10).

He has launched an EU wide movement for democracy and against austerity policies called Diem25.

And the majority of Greeks , while they are angry and unhappy at what the EU has imposed on them, believe they are not in a position to leave the EU or go back to their own currency at the moment.

(1) = Open Democracy 14 aug 2015 ‘Greece has become the EU’s third protectorate’, https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/jan-zielonka/greece-has-become-eu%E2%80%99s-third-protectorate

(2) = BBC News 26 Feb 2012 ‘Are Greeks the hardest workers in Europe?’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155304

(3) = OECD Stat Extracts ‘Average annual hours actually worked per worker’, http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

(4) = BBC News 05 May 2010 ‘Three dead as Greece protest turns violent’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8661385.stm

(5) = BBC News 22 Jun 2015 ‘Greece spells out terms for debt crisis 'breakthrough'’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33228119 (scroll down to subheading  ‘Greece debt talks : main sticking points’ ‘EU officials say Greece has agreed to budget surplus targets of 1% of GDP this year, followed by 2% in 2016 and 3.5% by 2018; Greece says nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ )

(6) = AFP 23 Feb 2016 ‘Germany notches up record budget surplus in 2015: stats office’, http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1417803/germany-notches-record-budget-surplus-2015-stats-office

(7) = www.guardian.co.uk 23 May 2016 ‘IMF tells EU it must give Greece unconditional debt relief’, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/23/imf-warns-eu-bailout-greece-debt-relief

(8) = Greek Reporter 28 Jan 2015 ‘Greece: This is SYRIZA’s New Government Plan in Detail - See more at: http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/01/28/greece-this-is-syrizas-new-government-plan-in-detail/#sthash.ahNA2k1R.dpuf’, http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/01/28/greece-this-is-syrizas-new-government-plan-in-detail/

(9) = BBC News 22 Jan 2015 ‘ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30933515

(10) = www.guardian.com 05 Apr 2016 ‘Yanis Varoufakis: Why we must save the EU’,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu

Extending term limits to allow Presidents to stand for more than one or two terms is not unconstitutional nor dictatorship nor undemocratic if it’s done democratically – whether it’s Chavez in Venezuela, Zelaya in Honduras or Kirchner in Argentina

It's ridiculous that amending a constitution by a democratic process is presented as unconstitutional by the right in Latin America and by people and governments in Europe and the US when commenting on Latin America.

They've done this with President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who held elections for a Constituent Assembly which then drafted a new constitution and voted to approve it.

They did it with President Zelaya in Honduras, who was overthrown in a military coup after he tried to hold a referendum on whether to elect a constituent assembly to amend the constitution to let Presidents serve a second term if re-elected. Zelaya’s plan did not even allow for him to stand in the upcoming elections, as the referendum results would only be known after them. This was to revise a constitution which was written when military death squads were still massacring people in the 80s - and to allow Presidents to have a second term in office – the existing constitution limiting it to one term. Polls showed 55% of Hondurans supported it.

In a supposed move to “defend the constitution” members of the Honduran congress and military violated it a dozen times over by a military coup against the elected President that also involved jailing people without trial, torturing them and murdering them.

Now President Fernandez Kirchner’s proposals to amend the constitution to allow Presidents to stand for a third term in Argentina are being labelled “unconstitutional” and “dictatorship” too (1).

If it wasn't for the First Amendment to the US constitution there would be no right to freedom of speech in the US. No-one said it or any other amendment to the constitution was “unconstitutional” or a move towards dictatorship.

British and Australian Prime Ministers can be elected for any number of terms - yet no-one called Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair would-be dictators when they stood for their third terms as heads of government.

In the US the constitution was only amended in 1951 to restrict Presidents to two terms after Franklin D Roosevelt won four elections in a row , because he'd angered the wealthiest and the big banks and firms with the New Deal policies that actually benefited the majority of the population and so reduced bank and big company profits. There’s an obvious parallel with Chavez there.

Some Republican members of congress even proposed scrapping the term limit in the US during Reagan’s second term as President to allow him to run for a third.

(1) = guardian.co.uk 06 Nov 2012 ‘Fernández de Kirchner reforms spark Argentina protests’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/06/fernandez-de-kirchner-reforms-protest

A non-binding consultative referendum on independence or increased devolution for Scotland would still have democratic legitimacy

David Cameron and the UK government can certainly refuse to make the results of any referendum including increased devolution legally binding under UK law, but they can’t prevent the Scottish government holding a consultative, non-binding, referendum. It would be impossible to deny the democratic legitimacy of the result.

 The only questionable part of the SNP’s plan is allowing 16 and 17 year olds to participate. This would give the Unionist parties an open goal to say the results of the referendum weren’t valid, since 16 and 17 year olds can’t vote in UK General elections.

Labour and the Lib Dems have joined with the Conservatives in insisting any referendum must be a straight choice between the status quo or independence, yet both parties supported devolution in the 1997 referendum. How can they argue that Scottish voters be entitled to choose to devolve some domestic powers, but not others, especially when polls show 67% want more powers devolved to the Scottish government including full powers to decide how taxes raised in Scotland are spent? (1) – (2)

Devolving more powers could reduce the amount of taxpayers’ money that Westminster parties could hand to billionaire and corporate patrons. If Scottish governments gained the powers to issue bonds, borrow money, or spend a higher share of taxes raised in Scotland, PFI gravy trains here might end.

If Scots are refused the increased devolution option, more will vote for independence. This would lose the UK revenues from oil and gas off Aberdeen and Shetland. UK governments fiddle the figures to pretend an independent Scotland would be bankrupt, by assuming oil revenues would be split proportionally to population. In fact under international law they would be split by proximity, giving Scotland far more than it’s 10% of the UK population.

An independent Scotland would be a small neutral country on the North-Western edge of Europe, so would not need a nuclear deterrent any more than Norway or Sweden, and would avoid the costs in money and lives of involvement in US-led wars. These costs would then be paid solely by the rest of the UK. So Scotland would be better off and the UK (unless it gets a much better government with better policies) much worse off.

We might even avoid future financial crises. Both Norway and Sweden avoided any crisis or recession and both of their economies are still growing, as they never de-regulated their financial sector to the degree that the Conservatives (from Thatcher’s 1986 ‘Big Bang’ on) or Labour governments in the UK have.

Is Cameron trying to provoke Scots into independence in the hope the Coalition will have a permanent majority if 50 Scottish Labour MPs are gone?

If so this is unlikely to work.

Labour’s last three majorities exceeded the number of Labour MPs elected in Scotland (3) – (8). Three quarters of Lib Dem voters surveyed at the time of the last election and again recently no longer support the party (9). Cameron should realise that independence will hurt his party far more than increased devolution would.

 (1) = The Politics Wire / British Future 10 Jan 2012 ‘Support for devolution across Britain is growing as ‘national’ identity outweighs feelings of ‘Britishness’ ’, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/blogs/thepoliticswire/985/Support-for-devolution-across-Britain-is-growing-as-national-identity-outweighs-feelings-of-Britishness.aspx , ‘During this period, support for independence in Scotland has grown. This is illustrated in recent Ipsos MORI polls and is reinforced by our latest survey for British Future, which shows around a third of Scots now backing a breakaway from the UK….At the moment, however, a majority of Scots prefer to remain part of the UK, albeit favouring substantial new powers for the Scottish Parliament. Ipsos MORI polling in Scotland shows that over two-thirds would vote in favour of giving Holyrood further legislative and tax-raising powers.’

(2) = STV News 21 Dec 2011 ‘Most Scots back complete revenue raising powers for Holyrood’,http://news.stv.tv/politics/291223-most-scots-back-complete-revenue-raising-powers-for-holyrood/

(3) = BBC News Last updated Sep 2005 ‘Blair win historic third term – majority of 66’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

(4) = BBC News 23 May 2005 ‘Election 2005 – results: Scotland’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/region_7.stm (shows 41 Labour MPs elected in Scotland)

(5) = BBC News ‘Vote2001: Results & Constituencies’http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/default.stm ; Labour majority 167

(6) = BBC News ‘Vote 2001 : Results & Constituencies UK Breakdown – Scotland’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/uk_breakdown/scotland_full_1.stm , – shows 56 Labour MPs elected in Scotland in 2001 General Election

(7) = BBC News ‘Vote 2001: Election battles 1945-1997’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/in_depth/election_battles/1997_over.stm , ‘In 1997 Labour…Tony Blair's New Labour had gained a staggering 179-seat overall majority.’

(8) = Denver, David (1997) ‘THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION IN SCOTLAND:AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS’ in Scottish Affairs, no.20, summer 1997 (table 1 on page 2 shows 56 Labour MPs were elected in Scotland in 1997), http://www.scottishaffairs.org/backiss/pdfs/sa20/SA20_Denver.pdf

(9) = Independent 06 Jan 2012 ‘Lib Dems lose three out of four of their voters ’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-lose-three-out-of-four-of-their-voters-6285640.html