Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE TROIKA HAS reached a basic agreement on the next steps forward for Greece’s rescue program in a long-delayed step that could free up fresh funds for Athens.
The International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank said the Greek government was committed to keeping the bank sector healthy, one of the issues that had apparently held up the agreement for a new funds release for more than five months.
“The mission and the authorities agreed that the economy is beginning to stabilize and is poised for a gradual resumption of growth,” they said in a statement.
Fiscal performance is on track to meet program targets… The authorities are making progress on structural reforms to improve the growth potential and flexibility of the Greek economy.
They said the government is committed to doing all that is necessary to ensure it banks remain healthy and sufficiently capitalized in order to support an economic rebound.
But they warned that the banks still faced potential challenges to maintaining adequate levels of capital, “in particular, if the authorities and banks do not urgently and efficiently address the high level of non-performing loans.”
Swift recapitalization of banks will strengthen their balance sheets.
The agreement was done at the staff level after a review mission to the eurozone member country that had been expected to conclude around last September.
The statement said the Eurogroup and the IMF executive board would likely review the agreement “in the coming weeks.”
Klaus Masuch of the European Central Bank, right, and European Commission official Matthias Mors, enter the Greek Ministry of Finance in central Athens, past a wall spray-painted with slogans against Greece’s bailout inspectors. (Image Credit: AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)
Approval would allow a fresh release of funds to Athens that will help it continue to bridge fiscal shortfalls while implementing more reforms required under the bailout program.
Rescue funding
The quarterly audits by the so-called international Troika determine whether Greece can get rescue funding, with the next tranche worth some €8.5 billion.
Hard hit by the economic crisis, Greece is experiencing a sixth straight year of recession and has a staggering 28 percent unemployment rate.
Ireland’s recently fell to 12.1 per cent.
€110 billion
The Troika first bailed out debt-riddled Greece in 2010 with a program worth €110 billion, compared to Ireland’s €67.5 billion.
When that failed to stabilize the economy, they agreed a much tougher second rescue in 2012 worth €130 billion, plus a private sector debt write-off of more than €100 billion.
Meanwhile, IMF chief Christine Lagarde denied any wrongdoing as she was questioned for the third time by French prosecutors in a corruption case.
International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde arrives at the courthouse. (Image Credit: AP Photo/Christophe Ena)
Lagarde was grilled for more than 10 hours over her handling of a 400 million euro ($557 million) state payout to disgraced French tycoon Bernard Tapie in 2008 when she was finance minister.
Speaking afterwards Lagarde said the hearing had been “very respectful, very courteous”.
I have always acted in the interest of the country and in accordance to the law.
Lagarde was questioned by prosecutors working for the Court of Justice of the Republic, a special court that probes cases of ministerial misconduct.
Tapie is suspected of receiving favourable treatment in return for supporting ex-president Nicolas Sarkozy in the 2007 election.
The payout was connected to a dispute between the businessman and partly state-owned bank Credit Lyonnais over his 1993 sale of sportswear group Adidas.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Who’s more dishonest?
Prisoners or the ones they’d be voting for?
It seams like prisoners have more rights than their victims
If you read the judgement, the ECHR (not the Court of Justice in Europe, by the way) objects to a blanket ban on all prisoners voting. They agree, in principle, that some prisoners can be banned, but not all. So I’m not sure how you’re arguing that a mugger has more voting rights than the victim or a drug dealer has more voting rights than a drug user.
They’ll have more voting rights than everyone who’s been forced to emigrate. Commit a murder and you get to be involved in shaping a government?! Enforced emigrants can’t vote from abroad so can’t help reshape the government that caused their exodus. Something’s wrong with that picture.
If you read the judgement, you would have noted they don’t say it has to be extended to murderers, simply that a blanket ban against all prisoners is disproportionate. What about those serving minor sentences?
I think it would be really interesting for Irish emigrants to take a case to the ECHR, however. It’d be a good case with these precedents.
Even more reason to leave the EU
The EU and the European Convention of Human Rights are two separate organisations.
Nick, EU Membership requires accession to the ECHR.
Do you think he was referencing that distinction or that he had confused the two? I’m betting on the latter….
I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You’re clearly less cynical than I am. :-) Regardless, I do think there’s a lack of understanding of the distinctions between the two and it’s important that when we’re talking about it, that it’s clearly pointed out what the ECHR does and what the Court of Justice of Europe does.
How far can the ECHR go in interfering with the way countries are run?
Surely suffrage is a constitutional matter.
I don’t believe that prisoners voting is mentioned in the Italian constitution (certainly not in the UK). I heard the arguments being made on behalf of the prisoners and it was quite compelling – the idea that when politicians (not constitutions) define who should be able to vote, it’s a dangerous concept of democracy.
Suffrage is generally granted by the state. Should it be imposed from above?
And the UK doesn’t have a written consitution it has a history through law.
It seems it comes down to how much you believe that voting is a human right and how much you think it should be a sovereign matter. Considering that voting has typically been denied to women and minorities in a lot of states, I view it as a basic human right (of course, I’m in the minority that believes children should be able to vote, so I doubt I’m representative of the whole populace).
If you perceive voting as a basic human right, this judgement makes a lot of sense. You don’t seem to view it as a right, but as something which states can legitimately deny portions of the population.
Sorry, I’ve been agog since I read that you want kids to vote.
They can’t decide whether they want sausages or fish fingers for dinner but you want them to elect governments.
Mad. As.
I believe in pure democracy. But I don’t think they can do worse than some other voters in Europe!
Diluting the franchise doesn’t strengthen it, unless you believe in homeopathy.
I don’t know what that comparison is about, but if you argue that you believe in universal suffrage, there should be no exceptions. But then we’ve already established you believe governments should be able to take the vote away from people without any form of oversight.
I also would love to live in a society governed by pure democracy but could only ever work if everyone was informed on what they have the power to vote on, take for example some people I’ve meet recently who plan on voting yes, they can only reiterate what the TV told them about “stability” and future bailouts. They hadn’t the foggiest clue what I was on about when I mentioned my concerns and skepticism over certain articles of the treaty or our relation to the ESM if we ratify it what it means to vote Yes and our then commitments, they switch off and say “ah but shure the Gov. are looking for a yes so we can get more money and the no are a bunch of shinners and out from the fringes as usual”
These people who wont go to the bother of looking into what they been asked to make an informed decision and vote on are dangerous, and a sad byproduct of democracy led by laziness and persuasion when they will vote the way they are told if its repeated enough times and made sound the safer option between the ads for Eurovision.
Even though they will not question the accuracy or merits of what they are taking as positive points.
This can be said for people who vote the other way also mind, but since the Gov are pushing these things in a certain direction pure democracy has little chance of achieving its true potential of everyone in society making a valid contribution through their informed decision when real assessments and clear wordings are absent and drowned out with garbage, garjon and scaremongering.
My understanding of an individual being punished for crimes committed means ‘no rights to anything that is happening in the outside world. Did the crime – do the time!
It is in my opinion that if you are in prison for committing a crime you forfeit your right to vote until you are rehabilitated and released!
Next thing you know they’ll expect the jails to let the inmates nip down to their local voting centres, “of course we’ll be back, honest g’vnor.”
Sinn fein will be thrilled!
have your say