Also there have been calls for the state to enforce a minimal service, but as far as I can tell it has not been actually enforced. There is pressure from EU side to make minimal services obligatory but I don’t know how the situation is now (link from 2011 and again in Dutch)
http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2011/05/24/europese-spoormannen-geven-schot-voor-de-boeg

This idiotic distinction is only used by Communists and Libertarians, both of which want to insulate the “people” from their responsibility in electing their “government”.

You confuse the puppets for the puppeteers.

Where is the EU Human Rights framework of law in all of this? One of the fundamental pillars of the EU is the European Convention on Human Rights (co-authored by, I think, the late Sean McBride who, at the age of 17 years took up arms to free his nation from a foreign tyranny, but that’s another story).

Every European Union citizen is supposed to have recourse to the protection of the European Court of Human Rights, established to underpin our universal human rights, regardless of the actions of national governments, including the right to withdraw our labour.

What has Germany done? A decade or so ago German politicians have agreed to establish a currency area (€uro), unsustainable from the beginning. This enabled Greece and other member states to live far beyond their means for a couple of years. Now the German/Dutch/Austrian/Finnish tax payers and pensioners are supposed to pay back Greek (and other southern countries) debts. This is the simple truth. A truth which will lead the EU into dictatorship (“more Europe”), disintegration (civil war is not so far away) or a completely new beginning (cooperation more on a horizontal than vertical level). Cameron is in many ways right, although there might be vicious intentions/motives behind his arguments.
There is no German atrocity, it is all the fault of a stubborn and arrogant EU establishment.

And by the way, I find it very sad that anyone could bring themselves to defend stuff like this by saying “…. it seems anyway the Greeks should decide themselves what to do”. This is the Greek Government. No-one has consulted the Greek people.

When you find yourself making patently dishonest arguments to defend what’s going on in the EU, it’s time to ask yourself exactly why dishonest arguments are required to defend the EU.

Keep up the good work.

If there´s basically national chaos nonetheless, and “illegal” strikes are ocurring all the time, how can the state not do anything?

Would you rather all the workers be replaced? Can it actually be done? What would that contribute?

Or should the government just cave? Greece has held elections several times already. Should Parliament be suplanted just because?

And furthermore, where is the pattern? The examples seem scarce for such an obsession.

Everyone in Europe knows that Greece historically has had both a very hard left as well as right.

Strikes in countries like Greece and France are common. In the UK too, before unions were emasculated.

Human rights law requires that the essence of a liberty always be protected. But it doesn´t condone abuse of rights. And for the most part it doesn´t care for labels and formalisms, what counts is the motivation and the effect.

The widespread supression of civil liberties is usually the result of the rise to power of an authoritarian leader who wants to save the country from chaos created by pressure groups (usually socialist and liberal well intended ones).

I´m not following Greek politics close enough, but it seems anyway the Greeks should decide themselves what to do. These type of articles wouldn´t be as generic if there was true respect and empathy for the society being written about.

What Germany has done to Greece via the EU is most probably atrocious. But in the anti-EU blindness we need to keep in mind that the Greek governments have been all the time in extremely difficult positions. And they still are, probably even more so now than a few years ago.

This is a discussion of the trees, while missing the forest. There´s a systematic failure to make a connection between situation, problem and solution. What is the purpose of the article? What are we made aware of and for what purpose?

“Journalists/Editorialists” should take more pride in their work, specially when they are not well versed in the specific subjects they are dealing with (including the historical, legal and cultural aspects) and when they seem to have no experience in actually helping run a government.

Another superficial article.

At least less sarcasm and a more proper tone for such serious issues.