Britain breathed a big sigh of relief last week when hearing the news that we'd not be required to contribute to the next bailout pot of cash for Greece - Though we will still have to pour another £1billion or so down the Greek drain via the International Monetary Fund. Personally I'm not convinced we've been let off that lightly. And as the saying goes, 'The devil is in the details'.
EU president Herman Van Rompuy was reported in the mainstream news as having 'caved in' to the forceful argument from David Cameron that contributions to any second Greek bailout should only involve eurozone members. But what did Van Rompuy mean by those 'other ways' he said Britain would be expected to help Greece in their recovery efforts?
For example: What do you think would happen if Britain decided at this late stage that we couldn't host next years Olympic Games after all?
(Plenty of 'reasons' could be found to justify it. A foot and mouth outbreak, or a sudden discovery of a structural fault in the main Olympic Stadium would suffice). What country could then step in to save the games? Well, it would have to be a country with the necessary infrastructure already in place to be able to stage them at such short notice. Who might that be I wonder? As chance would have it Greece would be an ideal choice given they'd held the Olympic Games in Athens as recently as 2004! On top of that by switching them from London to Athens next year would mean the 2012 games would still take place in Europe. And there's icing on that Greek cake? With so little money having to be spent out on staging them - the 2004 games left Athens with one of the best underground transport systems in the world - 'Athens 2012' would be the most profitable Olympic Games for a host nation EVER - and just at a time when Greece could really do with the money. How convenient is that!
I've learned by experience never to trust those who make deals in the dark behind closed doors. I think we've lost the games. What do you think?
