> On Jul 21, 2015, at 1:14 PM, nathan tankus <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I don't think a plan B was against their electoral mandate. if it's really > true that they had an explicit electoral mandate not to have a plan B than > they needed to be much more supplicant in negotiations and fight for scraps > much more. The kind of grandstanding they did only works if you have a plan B > and can credibly threaten to implement it.
As you yourself have said, any serious plan B would require very long preparation time, politically and technically. What could they have done in 5 months, with powerful creditors not giving a centimeter? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
