The Humiliation of Greece
by Golem XIV on DECEMBER 20, 2012 in LATEST
Itʼs not often we get to witness the moment when a leader sells his nation for money. Such a moment occurred in Athens last week.
At the behest and on the authority of Prime Minister Samaras and President Papoulias, an amendment to Greek law was drawn up last week. There was no debate in parliament, the vote is still to be purchased. But unless this amendment is challenged or changed, the change it will bring in will alter the future of Greece and its people every bit as much as the day Greece joined the Euro, perhaps even as much as the day Democracy was re-instated after the long rule of the Generals. Only this change will be a giant step away from Democracy and towards subservience to an unelected elite.
You can read the law in its original here. Here is a translation of the key part.
«The Beneficiary Member State, the Bank of Greece and the Hellenic Financial Stability Fund each hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives all immunity to which it is or may become entitled, in respect of itself or its assets, from legal proceedings in relation to this Amendment Agreement, including, without limitation, immunity from suit, judgment or other order, from attachment, arrest or injunction prior to judgment, and from execution and enforcement against its assets to the extent not prohibited by mandatory law».
The law says, should any future Greek government try to default in any way on its debts – by setting up a debt commission or by any other means, even one accepted by international law and precedent, then Greece chooses to relinquish all claims on the assets of the Greek people and the nation and equally relinquishes all legal protections from its creditors/bond holders. In other words, if a future Greek government tries to default, Mr Samaras and Mr Papoulias have guaranteed that the Greek people will forfeit and lose any and all rights to their nationʼs assets including its national companies and natural resources and the law will not protect them. All those assets will be open to seizure by Greeceʼs bond holders. The vulture funds, vulturecrats and all the bond holders have been handed a loaded gun and a license to loot.
No nation has ever done this. The question is why are Greek politicians trying to do it and why now?
For the last two years two questions have echoed round and round Europe and occupied the elite who rule/own it – how to stop Greece defaulting and how to recapitalize its banks – so that neither can pull down the things Europe really cares about – Germanyʼs and Francesʼs banks?
I believe passing the above law is an important part of the answer to both those questions. In fact, if passed in to law, it will, I think all but complete a Troika formulated policy begun with the much talked about but little understood, partial Greek default and bond swap, that was the first station of Greeceʼs cross. What is that policy?
Stop Greece from Defaulting.
There has been and continues to be much talk about ʽhelping Greece not to defaultʼ. In actual fact there is very little real ʽhelpʼ at least not for the Greek people. The intent of Troikaʼs policy for Greece has been far more directly to simply ʽstopʼ Greece defaulting no matter what harm it does to Greece or its people. The policy has actually been to crucify Greece if necessary, and to deny her, no matter what, the release of default.
I believe this new proposed law is intended to put beyond all reach the release of default.
But first lets clear this law is not a one off. It is a continuation of a policy that the bond swap began. The bond swap dealt with only one part of Greek debt closing off only one potentially open door to default. The present proposed law closes off all the other exits in one stroke.
So letʼs start by clearing away some of the misdirection that the mainstream media has so helpfully piled in our way concerning the debt swap that Greece undertook in March 2012 and about which so much has been written. First the debt being swapped was purely Sovereign debt that was held privately. I. E. by banks. So it did not cover sovereign debt held by other nations or central banks, nor any private debt, such as that issued by Greeceʼs banks. Only sovereign debt held by banks and other financial institutions.
Needless to say the debt/bond holders of those institutions have used every column inch they could buy or influence to tell the approved story of how they, the ʽwealth-producersʼ of the world, as they like to style themselves, have been robbed by a nation of feckless, work-shy,ʼsocialisticʼ, tax-avoiding, recidivist crooks. What actually happened is nearly the opposite.
Certainly, Greece did default/restructure this debt. So on the face of it it cannot be denied that the bond holders took a loss. But as I have pointed out before, private companies default all the time. Default is not a crime against business, it is part of it. Neither restructuring debt nor defaulting it is a crime. Letʼs look at the case of Chrysler – again. The management simply did the mathematics and knew that unless they could reduce their burden of debts they would not be able to get out from underneath them in order to make a profit going forward. Given that situation the management (Who by the way were the culpable ones for piling up that much debt) simply said – if we do not reduce this debt then the business is dead. Better to default some of our debt and allow a business that can make money to emerge.
That is all default is. A sensible way out of a disastrous situation.
Now when Chrysler defaulted they forced a settlement on their creditors of 29 cents on the dollar. According to the BIS (Bank for International Settlements)
In February 2012, the Greek government launched an offer to exchange ?206 billion of bonds held by private sector investors for new bonds with a face value of about ?100 billion.
So Greece offered very nearly 50 cents ʽon the dollarʼ. To me thatʼs a bail out in all but name because it is above what the bond holders would have got had they been selling in the open market. The Greek government made no attempt to get the best deal for their people, but instead offered the open hand of generosity for their banker friends while beating down on ordinary Greeks with a closed fist.
But the settlement with the bond holders was never simply about money ʽnowʼ, it was perhaps even more about altering the future. This was a ʽrestructuringʼ with one purpose – to make future default or restructuring impossible. The bond holders got paid 15% of the face value of their bonds in cash up front. The important point, however, is that the rest of their 50 cents on the dollar came in the form of new bonds issued to replace the old. The important point, perhaps the main point of the exercise was that the old bonds, which were ʽGreek Lawʼ bonds were replaced by ʽEnglish Lawʼ bonds. The difference between Greek law and English law bonds is important and valuable to those holding them.
In Greek law bonds there can be are what are called Collective Action Clauses which allow the government to impose on the bond holders an agreement which is binding on them all so long as a majority votes in favour. Thus in a restructuring the government can dictate terms and as long as a majority of the bond holders agree, however reluctantly, the rest have no choice but to acquiesce. This is what Chrysler did. This is exactly what the Greek government did to debt it had issued under Greek Law. In English law these clauses do not appear. Which means that individual bond holders, of debt issued under English law, can hold out against imposed restructurings and refuse to settle. The effect is to make it very difficult for a government to force a settlement on bond holders. Hold-outs can always block it and force a higher price.
What the Greek government did, with the blessing of the Troika, was use the collective settlement not only to offer the holders more than they would have got in the market – which mean as far as the markets were concerned that the banks were better off after the default than before – but to replace all the Greek law bonds which allow restructuring with new English law bonds that make it impossible. The deal made this restructuring the last Greece would be able to do.
So while the mainstream press obediently peddled the ʽpoor bondholders being forced to accept defaultʼ story – the real story was that thanks to English law bonds for the old Greek law ones, no future Greek government that was not convinced of the merits of destroying Greece for the sake of Europeʼs big banks, or wanted to re-negotiate – like a possible left wing, Syriza government – no such government, no matter what it promised those who voted for it, could ever again impose a collective default settlement upon the new debts.
The bond settlement was not just about giving to the bond holders it was about taking away from the citizens of Greece. Taking away from them their ability to chose certain futures.
Foreclosing the future
Now letʼs look forward to what might happen if the present coalition were to lose the next election and Syriza were to gain power. The Syriza leader, Mr Alexis Tsipras, has already called for a debt commission, and in any election that call or something similar, will be a central promise of Syriza to the Greek electorate.
But now consider what the chances would be of making good on any such promise. If Syriza were to take exception to the generous deal given to the bond holders and if they tried to change that deal in any way, it would be a technical default and the English law clauses would prevent any new deal being forced on the bond holders. The clause would stop any attempt by Syriza to reduce Greek debt by that route. That avenue was closed when the present government signed its generous restructuring deal.
So much of the ʽpoor bond holdersʼ story. But the bond story only dealt with one part of Greeceʼs debt. It left untouched the part of Greeceʼs Soveriegn debt held by governments, central banks like the ECB and Fed, and by other international funders such as the IMF or the various European bail-out funds like the EFSF etc., and did nothing to ʽsaveʼ Greeceʼs banks from the mountain of bad private debts they still held or which they had pledged as collateral to the ECB. These debts are what new law is for.
The New Law.
On the surface the new law pertains only to the debts of the Greek state and its institutions. And on their debts the proposed new law is rather clear. It says, should any new future Greek government, no matter the mandate given to them in an election, try to default on any of Greeceʼs remaining sovereign debt, now held mainly held by other governments, central banks and international financial bodies, then the Greek state and the government of the day would have no protection in law against suits brought against them nor even against injunctions served to restrain their assets prior to an actual judgement. This means a Greek government would not even be able to fight such a case because while they were trying to fight, all their sovereign assets would already be frozen.
IF a Greek government tried to default not only would it not be able to force a settlement on its English law bond holders, but nations and central banks to whom it owed money would simply be able to claim and then seize Greek national assets. They could start with those already held by them, such as Greeceʼs gold held abroad, but also claim ownership of any other asset such as Greeceʼs infrastructure of roads, rail, power, water, oil and lands.
In one fell swoop the new law would radically alter the situation of those institutions, such as the ECB, who are sitting on billions of Greek government bonds pledged as collateral by Greek banks. Up till now a default would have left the ECB, like everyone else, holding worthless paper and heading for the nearest court to file suit in the hope of eventually getting a judgement in their favour. Whose court and what judgement no one has been clear about. In short the EBC and everyone else were holding debt that was not secured against any specific claim against Greeceʼs assets. They were, in effect, unsecured bond holders. The ECB would not like to see it that way but I think that is how it is.
The new law changes this. And I think the European poweres are well aware of this and it is why they insisted on this law being written. For let us be clear this law was created by the Troika for the precise purpose I have outlined. The law, or the idea of it, was there in the 400 pages of the memorandum that was drawn up to govern the Greek bail out back in February. The eventual adoption of the law, is there in the fine print as one of the preconditions for the bail out to be fully released. And now the Greek quislings have done their masterʼs bidding.
Because if the law is adopted, then suddenly, in a default, every one of the Troika institutions could point to Greek law and say, by your own sovereign law the Greek bonds/debt we are holding are secured against your national assets. Any default and the ECB could claim whatever it wanted to cover the value of the bonds it held. My guess is the ECB might fancy Greeceʼs financial sector, thus making the running of Greeceʼs economy from Frankfurt much easier than it is now.
Of course a Greek government would not have to roll over and agree. A Greek government could still alter the law and say we are still ʽthe will of the peopleʼ and we will not surrender any assets no matter what your claim. But in return Greeceʼs gold would be seized as would any other Greek sovereign assets held abroad. Greece would also find suits imposed on any banks that tried to do business with them. The suits would all be based on the new, proposed law.
Taken together the earlier bond settlement, replacing Greek law bonds with English law bonds, plus the as yet to be voted upon new law would make it almost impossible for an any future Greek government, to ever again default or restructure sovereign debt. Together they are, I think, how the Troika plans to stop, prevent, and outlaw Greek people determining their own future..
This is how the Troika intends to crucify Greece.
But as if this wasnʼt enough I want to suggest one more deeply unpleasant thought that came to me when I was thinking about the purpose of this new law. This is speculation because it is based upon an interpretation of the law and I am not a lawyer. But I want to put it to you because if I am in any way correct it makes the actions of the leaders like Mr Samaras an even more horrid betrayal.
Private debts in Private Greek Banks.
What I have not yet looked at is the immense pile of bad private debts held by the insolvent Greek banks. This would seem to be outside the scope of the proposed law. And this is a problem, because if those banks collapsed, the ripples of the event could spread and to where no one is quite sure: Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank, Unicredit, The Bundesbank itself, Credit Agricole, Soc. Gen. No one quite knows. No one wants to find out. And what of the elite of Greece? The elite families of Greece, and there are only a few, who own its banks and its oil companies, and whose sons have provided Greece with her Generals as well as her Prime Ministers would face ruin if the private debts in their banks were to implode.
Of course this should be a private affair and nothing to do with the government and its debts. But, since 2007 we all know that such private debts have been made government business. That is the new world we have been brought to. Greeceʼs banks will require further assistance. Everyone is clear about that . So what if a future government decided, while it might not be able to restructure its sovereign debt, it could at least refuse to take on any more debt for the sake of ʽsavingʼ the private banks? A more left wing government could still allow banks to default. It could clear their debts, force their bond holders, whoever they were, to suffer the losses, and then nationalize whatever assets were left, and at least Greece would have a clean banking sector. Good for Greece. Not so good for the families whose wealth and power would have just burned down.
But now think what this new law would have to say about that. On the surface nothing you might think. So might Syriza. Private banks defaulting on private debts . Nothing the government could be sued for, even under the new law,
Sadly I think the new law is there to make sure the government could be sued even for allowing private banks to default on their private debts. How?
Think of how a bank, a systemically important bank, one large enough to cause a domino effect, has to be wound up. You cannot simply let it fall apart. That would be what is known as a disorderly insolvency. What has to happen, is an orderly insolvency that ensures the bank still fulfills its socially necessary functions as a bank for ordinary people and other businesses.
In an orderly insolvency, like Chryslerʼs. or Northern rockʼs, auditors must be appointed whose job it is to sort out the parts that are still viable from those that are not. The viable ones are put in one business and allowed to emerge from bankruptcy while the dead parts are put in another financial entity which is overseen by trustees while its affairs are wound down. For most companies this happens as an entirely private matter. A company like Chrysler simply stops making cars for a while until the legal and financial sums are done. But for banks it is different. People have to have access to their money. And for big banks their operations need to continue for the sake of lots of other businesses which rely on them. So in the case of banks the government usually steps in. In the case of Northern Rock or Bradford and Bingley in the UK or the Caja in Spain or hundreds of banks in America, the government takes over the failed bank. It becomes the temporary owner and the bankʼs debts appear on the government accounts. AND THERE is the key.
For as soon as a bank failed and the Greek government stepped in, as it would have to, to make sure the default was done in the orderly fashion that would protect ordinary people and the wider economy, then the bank and its debts would become sovereign. And as soon as that happened I think any sharp lawyer, expert in corporate and international law, would be able to argue that the default was ʼcaused byʼ or at least ʽoverseen and controlled byʼ the government and, as such, was a sovereign default.
If the government chose not to ʽsaveʼ the bank and its debts but instead allowed the bank to default, then the new law would empower the banks former owners and its creditors to seize sovereign assets.
It might seem incredible, and it surely is, but if I have read the law properly I think there is a very good chance it would also be the case. Just think of the way the law allows Vulture funds to sue nations even for losses on loans the Vulture fund never had any interest in until it bought them up specifically so it could sue. Tell me my scenario is impossible.
If think there is a horrible chance that the proposed law would mean that any future Greek government would have no choice but to keep bailing out the private banks. It would makes the Greek private banks and those whose wealth and power is tied to them, invulnerable. They could not be allowed to default. the proposed new law, combined with the ʽEnglish lawʼ bonds would prevents any future government from being able to do anything at all to change the debt burden of the Greek people.
This law, if passed, and I think it will, would make the wealth of the 1%, untouchable even in default. The law would says either they are bailed out or they have the right to take whatever assets they wish in lieu. The new law, could, if I am correct, be used to recapitalize a defaulting bank by simply plundering the assets of the nation.
If this speculation, and this is all it is, is correct in any way, then one of the elite, Mr Samaras, framed this law knowing it would protect his fortune and power and that of his family and his friends and their families. A law by the elite for the elite. And one that would spell the end of any meaningful democracy in Greece.
It also means this. If the Greek people vote for Syriza and the promise of reducing their burden of debt and austerity, this law and the Bond changes will ensure those promises are all broken. If that happens the voters would turn against those who promised and failed. The Left will be seen as worse liars and rogues even than those they replaced. Many Greeks might then swing violently from left to right, in to the arms of far right nationalists.
And that would be the perfect excuse for suspending democracy and bringing in a ʽtechnocraticʼ government, a dictatorship by another name, perhaps of outsiders, backed by the military if necessary. A bankers paradise. A paradise of the elites. Vote left, swing right. The future of Europe.
This law is the end game. It must be stopped. And it can be. The Greek parliament can, and in my opinion must, vote it down decisively. If not then any incoming government seeking to turn away from enforced austerity, examine the nations debts, to reject that which was found to be odious and to restructure the rest, would find the steel jaws of a carefully constructed trap snapping closed upon them. At which point the only option would be something very close to revolution.
But it would be that or and end to democracy and economic crucifixion.
Η υπογραφή ενός νέου Μνημονίου και μάλιστα από μία κυβέρνηση που εκλέχτηκε για να καταργήσει τα δύο προηγούμενα, ισοδυναμεί με καταστροφή για τον ελλη…
Σε συνέντευξή του την Πέμπτη στο ρ/σ «στο κόκκινο», ο Γ. Σταθάκης το ξεκαθάρισε: «Η συμφωνία δεν είναι «το όλο»- Το κρίσιμο θέμα το ποιος θα κυβερν…
Στην εποχή μας η απεργία θεωρείται μια ξεπερασμένη μορφή βιομηχανικής πάλης. Στο όνομα ενός αφηρημένου ιδεολογικού κατασκευάσματος που αυθαίρετα αποκα…
Η μόλις (21/6/2011) λαβούσα ψήφο εμπιστοσύνης αναδομημένη κυβέρνηση του ΠΑΣΟΚ ετοιμάζεται, με αξιοζήλευτη προθυμία, να ψηφίσει το λεγόμενο και «μεσοπρ…
Ως άκυρα επιχειρήματα ονομάζεται μια μεγάλη σειρά από εσφαλμένα ή ατελή σκεπτικά που διαπιστώνονται στην ανθρώπινη επικοινωνία και στη διατύπωση κρίσε…