Collapsing in his internal contradictions

Charles Grant probably aimed to make a case for other EU countries bailing out eurozone members in danger of defaulting, concentrating on Greece.

The first part of his article puts a compelling financial and economic case why no one should lend Greece a bean. Wages up, state borrowing out of control, industry in the wrong sectors. Fear of street protests has deterred Greek politicians from taking serious steps to bring order to its public finances or to shake up its sluggish economy.

Politically, says Grant, a bailout would be attractive. Few Greeks would want to leave the euro; and if one eurozone country left, there would be a wall of speculation against other weak members. So better hold the line and not risk the Lehman Bros effect.

But then he turns on himself.

Greece would have to implement painful spending cuts and structural reforms. Is the Greek political system robust enough to swallow such bitter medicine? There would surely be huge demonstrations against austerity and perhaps calls to quit the euro.

Would they accept measures at the behest of the IMF or the EU, but not from their own politicians?

Don't believe it. We are not talking tweaking here, but major shifts over a prolonged period, by a country whose politicians lied about its economy to smuggle it into the eurozone in the first place.

If the EU provided the money, it might suit them politically for the IMF to write the conditions. But Greeks can read. They would know full well what was happening.

Eurozone voters can read too. Would you want your taxes to go to supporting a profligate economy, with questionable prospects of ever getting your money back?

This parrot is surely deceased.