Cyprus - The high price for a rescue

[Saxtonite]

German conservative politicians were opposed to greece entering the union for cultural and economic reasons. They then faced a PR campaign from the German left and the greek Government about how Germany, with its history, should not deny entry to others.

...which cultural reason exactly? I mean I heard people say the only reaosn Greece got in as opposed to Turkey -was- due to cultural reasons.

[Edi]

Also, you were all gung-ho about Courts compensating people for stuff taken from them at market values. I happen to know how much Germany paid conscripts - shall we find average market pay given at the same time, compare both sums and have a laugh finding all the court cases where youths sued state for compensation for what was essentially free labour?

To give an idea: in my nine months I made net what I later did in my first two months with my entry salary. That doesn't include my reduced retirement pension and the time I lost I could have used for actual work experience.

Well, aren't you special? Every one of us who has been in a conscripted army had to go through the same thing (and I'm not even German). Conscription is not an undue imposition given that the state has provided us with free education and a host of other benefits. Consider that period of conscription as a portion of you putting resources into the state in return for the state putting in resources for your benefit.

[Thanas]

Funny how "amendments are virtually unheard" suddenly changed to "liberty reducing mendicants are virtually unheard" changed.

Funny, I thought the context was clear enough. But apparently not.

But here some:
-conscription (already mentioned)
-the "Great Bugging" (Großer Lauschangriff) because screw privacy of the home
-the compromise about rights of asylum (Asylrechtskompromiss), a.k.a. the screw basic rights when you can make xenophobic election campaign compromise
-the German Emergency Acts

Good job. Now please point out how many of those are comparable in its effects to the state taking 20% of your property.

BTw., money on bank account = liberty?

Freedom to own property is a liberty.

Well, show me yours, and I show you mine? Post-war Germany hasn't been in the situation above, so there aren't fitting decisions.

Indeed there are not, so I don't get how you can form the opinion that the BverfG will suddenly decided to go "hahah, screw you."

Diese Auslegung des Art. 134 Abs. 4 GG nach dem Sinn und Zweck ergibt sich noch besonders daraus, daß es sich um eine Übergangsvorschrift handelt. Schon grundsätzlich ist davon auszugehen, daß der Abschnitt XI. des Grundgesetzes in seinen mannigfachen Übergangsvorschriften alle verschiedenen Aspekte bedenkt, die der Zusammenbruch des Reiches für die staatliche Neuordnung hatte. Speziell Art. 134 Abs. 4 GG bezweckt nicht die Bereinigung der Konkurslage des Reiches gewissermaßen "um ihrer selbst willen", sondern wegen ihrer grundlegenden Bedeutung für eine geordnete künftige Finanzwirtschaft in Bund und Ländern, die sonst größten Unsicherheiten und Risiken ausgesetzt gewesen wäre.

Yes, it's an transition law. But it also says default is okay if it's not just to save money but to keep the state going. [/quote]

You can't make judgements on a transition law to suddenly say the 14th article does not apply anymore. You can't. That's like me saying union-busting is okay because it was legal in the Empire and we got a transition law, so let's just screw them over. And the judges explicitly said that this case covered stuff before Art 14 existed:

Darüber hinaus ergibt sich aus dem Charakter des Art. 134 GG als Übergangsbestimmung, daß das Grundgesetz nicht einmal Eingriffe in gewährleistetes Eigentum zu erlauben brauchte: Erst der Gesetzgeber und nicht schon die Verfassung selbst konnte bestimmen, welche Leistungen auf die Reichsverbindlichkeiten zu erbringen seien. Erst hieraus konnten sich also die konkreten Rechte ergeben, die gegebenenfalls der Eigentumsgarantie unterfallen. Der Eintritt der Garantiewirkung des Art. 14 GG für die Reichsverbindlichkeiten von bestimmter Art und Höhe war hiernach von der vorherigen gesetzlichen Regelung abhängig. Art. 14 GG wirft insoweit kein verfassungsrechtliches Problem auf, weil er bei seinem Inkrafttreten noch kein konkretes Schutzobjekt vorfand.

[Thanas]

Basically, you need 2/3 majority of the Bundestag voting something in. Which is normally hard to gather, as governing coalitions rarely have even 60% of votes, but! When crisis comes, you often have grand 'agreement' coalition of two largest parties plus their sattelites that easily has 70-90% of seats and thus can change anything it wants to. Last time it happened was actually previous Bundestag term, not long ago.

1. The previous gorvernment was not created because of crisis.
2. No, they cannot change anything they want to. Provide proof that they can, especially in light of the constitutional guarantees.

Nice goalpost shifting we have here. From ironclad, untouchable articles where any change is unheard of, we go to "but now that you gave me more than I wanted, now do twice the work to prove my claims, waaah!".

I am sorry, I thought I was speaking to an intelligent person who realized that obviously only articles limiting freedom here would matter and not an idiot.

Actually, over half of them reduces individual liberties, which you'd knew if you actually bothered to read them,

I did. I don't find the stuff you say.

such as Article 12 going from "everyone has right to pick job" to 12a "unless Government wants you to drive tanks", but hey, enlighten us how conscription or adding clause Germans can be extradited to any EU country for trial (both of which severely limiting your guarantees) are examples of more freedom.

Conscription is one thing which is assuredly not on the same scale as the Government taking all of your money. Extradition to countries is only allowed if liberties are guaranteed to the same degree as in Germany, so no limitation of freedom. Oops.

What, am I supposed to do your homework for you now? You asked for list, you got one. Now take it and demonstrate it proves your baseless claims in any way. I am sure if you dig hard enough you can maybe find one amendment that did not reduce liberties.

Well, you are so stupid that a) you included something outside the first 20 articles (20a) and thought it to be a freedom-changing article (it only said that protecting animals is the aim of the state, oh so very horrible). So forgive if I do not trust your judgement at all.

But anyway, what about change 42, which after all declared men and women to have equal rights in the workplace, outlawed discrimination, secured rights for the disabled etc? It was easy enough to find, so I am sure you can demonstrate how the other amendments do in any way support your point of Germany being one amendment away from the state taking the money.

Oh, so now we have example that violated all 20 untouchable Articles yet was pushed through? Who could have guessed

How did it violate all those 20 untouchable articles?

Anyway, the point is, Article 12, pretty fundamental freedom, was watered down and castrated by Article 12a that could not be found in original constitution. If you can sell 50 years of youth Germans pointlessly walking from one end of Fulda Gap to another "training" as service to the state, I am pretty sure that Cyprus-grade crisis would be labelled and sent to presses as 'service to the state' so fast the ink of amendment wouldn't even dry before confiscations began.

You are delusional if you think that is in any way a remote possibility, especially since we are talking about what external enemy here? London? New york? The EZB? Pfft.

Also, you were all gung-ho about Courts compensating people for stuff taken from them at market values. I happen to know how much Germany paid conscripts - shall we find average market pay given at the same time, compare both sums and have a laugh finding all the court cases where youths sued state for compensation for what was essentially free labour?

Oh, wait, there were none as state declared that a year of barely paid work is compensated enough. Gee, there goes that nice theory Germany cares about just compensation for property or liberty taken in service of 'public good'.

So besides your hilarious failure to understand that work =/= property, care to enlighten me how conscription is in any way comparable to expropriation? Fact is, you are hinging everything on this because it is the only example you can find of the state limiting people on a wide scale. But it really doesn't support your point, because a period of service to the state is not the same as the state taking your money and because financiers are not the same as an external enemy.

[Terralthra]

Gotta say, I'm finding Thanas's priorities in defending fundamental rights pretty hilarious, and sad if his priorities reflect those of German legal establishment.

The right to own property is ABSOLUTE! The state can not tax your money (a little more than it already does), no matter how much of it you have, no matter if the alternative is complete budgetary collapse of the state!

The right to bodily autonomy? Eh, whatever, it's just six to twelve months of your life doing makework.

[Thanas]

Gotta say, I'm finding Thanas's priorities in defending fundamental rights pretty hilarious, and sad if his priorities reflect those of German legal establishment.

The right to own property is ABSOLUTE! The state can not tax your money (a little more than it already does), no matter how much of it you have, no matter if the alternative is complete budgetary collapse of the state!

Nice strawmen. I do not dispute that the state can demand extraordinary duties in case of emergencies. What I dispute is that it can do so without compensating people for it down the line.

The right to bodily autonomy? Eh, whatever, it's just six to twelve months of your life doing makework.

Said makework being arguably necessary to defend the state from the communists which were a real threat.

[Terralthra]

Gotta say, I'm finding Thanas's priorities in defending fundamental rights pretty hilarious, and sad if his priorities reflect those of German legal establishment.

The right to own property is ABSOLUTE! The state can not tax your money (a little more than it already does), no matter how much of it you have, no matter if the alternative is complete budgetary collapse of the state!

Nice strawmen. I do not dispute that the state can demand extraordinary duties in case of emergencies. What I dispute is that it can do so without compensating people for it down the line.

...which Cypriot banks have done, by issuing bank shares in the amounts of the deposits which were taken. So, what's your point?

The right to bodily autonomy? Eh, whatever, it's just six to twelve months of your life doing makework.

Said makework being arguably necessary to defend the state from the communists which were a real threat.

Oh yeah, the communist threat was really urgent in 2009. ::eyeroll::

[K. A. Pital]

The right to bodily autonomy? Eh, whatever, it's just six to twelve months of your life doing makework.

Said makework being arguably necessary to defend the state from the communists which were a real threat.

With a nuclear tripwire and three nuclear powers (US, France and Britain) which were supposed to actually do the fighting? And the last time I saw the world map, I did not see my country there being all red and fancy. It was gone, and gone for over 20 years now. Whereas conscription lasted for 20 years more until 2011.

What I dispute is that it can do so without compensating people for it down the line.

That's all nice when we are talking about rich First World countries which can actually afford to compensate people "down the line". What about total war in a poor nation? How on Earth can it compensate people down the line for confiscated funds, land, et cetera? Most likely it never will be able to do so.

Not that I'm necessarily against conscription, or against compensations for confiscation. I just think that a more honest position would be to say that material circumstances can require conscription or confiscation without compensation. However, that is a far more dangerous position, with a greater potential for abuse.

[Kane Starkiller]

It will be interesting to compare the future economic fortunes and recovery of Cyprus with that of Iceland. Another small island country which let its banking sector balloon to many times its GDP but which is not in the eurozone.

[Thanas]

...which Cypriot banks have done, by issuing bank shares in the amounts of the deposits which were taken. So, what's your point?

Cypriot bank shares are not the equivalent to the state guaranteeing them. They might be the only thing working in Cyprus but this part of the discussion is about Germany.

Oh yeah, the communist threat was really urgent in 2009. ::eyeroll::

Which is why I was against conscription from then on and you'll note that the demands of the court for a reform was one of the reasons why conscription was eventually abolished. Had a constitutional challenge been mounted in the 2000s+ after the first verdict slamming the state for unfairly using conscription it would have been successful IMO.

The right to bodily autonomy? Eh, whatever, it's just six to twelve months of your life doing makework.

Said makework being arguably necessary to defend the state from the communists which were a real threat.

With a nuclear tripwire and three nuclear powers (US, France and Britain) which were supposed to actually do the fighting? And the last time I saw the world map, I did not see my country there being all red and fancy. It was gone, and gone for over 20 years now. Whereas conscription lasted for 20 years more until 2011.

See above.

What I dispute is that it can do so without compensating people for it down the line.

That's all nice when we are talking about rich First World countries which can actually afford to compensate people "down the line". What about total war in a poor nation? How on Earth can it compensate people down the line for confiscated funds, land, et cetera? Most likely it never will be able to do so.

Not that I'm necessarily against conscription, or against compensations for confiscation. I just think that a more honest position would be to say that material circumstances can require conscription or confiscation without compensation. However, that is a far more dangerous position, with a greater potential for abuse.

I don't disagree with any of that, but we were talking about the hypothetical situation of a bank crush in Germany.

[Thanas]

German conservative politicians were opposed to greece entering the union for cultural and economic reasons. They then faced a PR campaign from the German left and the greek Government about how Germany, with its history, should not deny entry to others.

...which cultural reason exactly? I mean I heard people say the only reaosn Greece got in as opposed to Turkey -was- due to cultural reasons.

Whoops, missed this.

The cultural reason was concern about Greece's readiness considering the military dictatorship and concern about their economic strength not being ready as well. However, do note that this only was a matter of contention for the conservative party in Germany and I don't know if the Bavarian half of them only did it due to racism.