It’s worth looking at the details of the Greek proposals before rushing to judgement.

The media state that Syriza have simply given up and capitulated. Perhaps they are correct, certainly elements on both the left and the right agree with that analysis. Looking at the broad picture, the referendum endorsed a rejection of the last set of Euro-group proposals, but did not endorse leaving the eurozone or reverting to the Drachma. Syriza now has to find a way to keep Greece in the single currency while avoiding the continuation of austerity policies.

The intervention calling for debt relief (or at least significant debt restructuring) by the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. prior to the referendum should not be forgotten. From January 2015 Syriza has maintained that a further extension of the last bailout would be pointless; what was needed was a new program of structural reform and debt relief to ensure the Greek economy could grow while the interests of workers and the vulnerable were protected to the greatest extent possible.

Earlier this week new Greek proposals were first discussed in private session within the Euro-group and with EU finance ministers, then written proposals were submitted. Once the documents were submitted figures such as Donald Tusk, chair of the European Council, and others have a damascene conversion and make public statements regarding the need to ensure that Greek debt is sustainable, suggesting debt relief and restructuring but not going as far as suggesting a debt write down.

As the French government endorses the Greek proposals, the German finance minister for the first time concedes that, "Debt sustainability is not feasible without a haircut and I think the IMF is correct in saying that. But he added, "There cannot be a haircut because it would infringe the system of the European Union."He offered no solution to the conundrum, which implied that Greece's debt problem might not be soluble within the eurozone. But he did say there was limited scope for "reprofiling" Greek debt by extending loan maturities, shaving interest rates and lengthening a moratorium on debt service payments.

Much has been made of the Marshal Plan and the mechanisms used to allow post-war Germany to rebuild its economy. Essentially this was done through significant lines of credit with debts being either written off or restructured along timescales that stretched out to the next century. We would call that a debt write down or haircut. Schaeuble describes that as ‘reprofiling’.

So France endorses the Greek proposals, providing support stating they are credible, Tusk and others then advocate for a solution to the debt problem and Germany for the first time starts to concede at least some ground on restructuring the €300 billion debt.

If we were wondering exactly what Merkel, Hollande and Junker had been discussing, and if we also were curious about what the U.S. was up to - then this sequence of events provides us with an answer of sorts.

First the new program of financial aid and secondly something was to be done about the debt burden.

Looking then at the first element of this package which is the bailout proposal we should remember that initially Greece sought the release of the last €7b of the old programme now expired and wanted breathing space to negotiate a new programme based not on austerity but growth.

The previous June proposals rejected in a referendum had similar contents to what’s on offer now and sought to secure the extension of the old programme and the release of the last €7 billion. The new programme would last for 3 years and would provide €53 billion in financial aid. So the EU moved from offering €7 billion on a short term basis to offering €53 billion on a 3 year basis for essentially the same concessions plus some initiative on the second issue of debt relief.

Looking at the measures to be adopted over the next 3 years these are essentially the same as the June take it or leave it proposals made by the EU and rejected by Sryiza, the difference now is that in return Greece gets not €7 billion but €53 billion with some form of debt relief.

If accepted there are some positives:

• Government drive to eliminate corruption and tax avoidance amongst the elites

• Increases in corporation tax from 26 percent to 28 percent

• Sales of TV and broadcasting licenses – anyone who saw some of the TV coverage would know that unlicensed and unregulated private TV channels support the EU/ECB line and serve the interests of some very regressive interests

• Sales of 3G and 4G mobile licenses

• Cuts in military spending rising to €200 in 2016

• Reviews and changes to collective bargaining in line with ILO standards – essentially an improvement on the detrimental changes imposed by New Democracy

• Low VAT rates on medicines and other essential services

But there are many unpopular and damaging measures

• Govt to run fiscal surpluses of 1 percent rising to 3 percent by the end of the program

• Privatization of the Grid, regional airports and 3 major ports

• Increases in VAT on hospitality industry

• Ending VAT exemption for most Greek Islands previously exempt on the basis that they pay extra transportation and service costs to import all goods

• Increasing retirement age in stages to 67 from 60

• Decreasing early retirements in the public sector

• Cuts to the top 20 percent of pensioners

• Health taxed on pension increased from 4 percent to 6 percent

• Cuts to self-employed pension provision based on actual not notional earnings

• A Croke Park style mobility provision across the public services

• Performance management to be introduced across public service workplaces

All the cuts add up to about €12 or €13 billion over the lifetime of the agreement. It’s actually more by way of austerity cuts and tax increases than was proposed in the June agreement rejected in the referendum, so the logical question is it this agreement better or worse.

It’s better in fiscal terms. The pace of the cuts and tax increases is spread over a longer period and in return what we know so far is that these measures will hurt and cost the Greek economy €12 to €13 billion, but in return the Greek state is provided with €53 billion in financial aid an actual increase of €46 billion on what was offered before the referendum.

The downsides are that there has been virtually no change in the concession required to unlock this finding and although the amount on offer has increased its still a type of Troika program as per the old Greek bailouts and the deals in place in Ireland and Portugal.

The second element of the deal – the debt restructuring or debt relief we have not seen and if the proposal gets through the Greek parliament the EU will then have to put forward a realistic mechanism to ensure that the €53 billion is not simply recycled through the bankrupt Greek banks back to the creditors but that the bailout funding is used to assist Greece in reducing unemployment and providing a viable welfare safety-net.

Is this enough, or is it remotely enough to meet the needs of the Greek people? At this stage the capital controls and the refusal of the ECB to provide liquidity means that the banks are shut and will remain shut until a deal is done. No currency can leave Greece, no imports no exports, no medicines, no iTunes and soon no public service salaries or pensions.

We now know what Grexit looks like and it’s traumatic. Public services cease to exist as no-one is paid, the sick and the vulnerable are left to fend for themselves whilst the elites draw down the money sent abroad. If Grexit happens it must be through a planned transition that maintains support for the financial system whilst the Drachma finds a settled value, you cannot eat an IOU.

The referendum rejected the terms of the last deal, this deal is different, if it’s accompanied by genuine measures to reduce the debt burden and if the only other alternative is a completely bankrupt state outside the euro, then my view is that as a minimum Syriza have secured far better terms than the previous governments.

Before any of us rush to condemn Syriza, just remember what their aims were when entering government, they stated that they wanted to end austerity and reduce the debt burden, they stated that their Country needed huge structural reforms that PASOK, New Democracy and the right had failed to address over decades.

They have not ended austerity but they have caused all of us on all sides of this debate to critically analyse the basis of the policy in a way we have not done before.

They have taken negotiations with the Trioka to the brink and beyond, the only outcome of a rejection of the latest deal is that the Greek State tumbles out of the euro in an unplanned and painful manner.

No one could have negotiated harder in the face of brutal tactics from the EU and especially the ECB.

Greece has defaulted on its payments to the hated IMF, if the proposal is rejected then the ECB closes the banks and that’s it, Grexit overnight.

Whatever the outcome, the EU and the financial system underpinning the edifice will never ever be the same.

Andy Pike is National Secretary for IMPACT, the largest public service union in Ireland.