I’m talking about the Brussels Bozos, so the post title is a completely rhetorical question.
What I’m referring to specifically is that the Eurocrats were supposedly “blind-sided” by the opposition to the depositor bail-in in Cyprus, and the impending defeat of the proposal in the legislature.
What, did they think that Cyprus would roll over and sheepishly-and I do mean sheepishly-comply with the EU’s dictates? Did they really think that local politics wouldn’t rear its ugly head, and disrupt their orderly little world?
The sad thing is that I think the answers to those questions is “yes.” Or, more accurately, “YES!” The EU is an elite project and the elites presume that the hoi polloi will slavishly adhere to their master’s dictates. That’s probably true on small matters. Even medium-sized matters. Perhaps many big matters. But to Cyprus, this is an existential matter. What does Cyprus have to lose? Yes, the EU-and the Cypriot government-are telling horror stories about the nasties that await if they reject the monster mash bailout/bail-in, but the consequences of the monster mash are bad enough that it is perfectly understandable-to normal, sentient people, anyways-if the hoi polloi are willing to take a roll of the dice. What’s more, such a reaction to a dictate from afar is more than perfectly understandable. Human beings being human beings, damn them, will often refuse to take their medicine just because they are being forced to. But I guess I am expecting way too much when I suggest that the Eurotards should actually condition their policies on an understanding of human nature in its fallen, tragic state.
The Euros choices were two: bailout Cyprus completely, or do the monster mash of bailout and bail-in. Helluva choice. Either alternative would have pernicious consequences in Spain, Italy, etc. Encourage runs, or encourage moral hazard and brinksmanship. And the fact that those are the choices is exactly why the Eurozone and the EU are beyond absurd.