View Full Version : Future of the European Union
edyzmedieval
04-29-2018, 14:29
This is going to be complex, and quite debated. :book:
In essence, what we have right now in the European Union is a complicated junction with many roads, none of them clear - where do we go from here? The EU is not in an ideal shape, and political leaders realise this by trying to appeal to the EU-skeptics portraying the EU project as a unificator of Europe. These approaches have worked to some extent but it's clear the impact of Brexit will be hard and it will be a contentious issue for many many years.
So where do we go from here?
Economically, at this moment, we are on a relatively sound footing. But we have trade wars.
And what social wise? Cultural wise? Trade wise? Inter-exchange wise (Schengen)? Diplomacy?
Take your picks, where are we going?
rory_20_uk
04-29-2018, 21:55
Is this where is the EU going or where should the EU go? Even then is this based on ideals or on the reality of the world as-is?
Eastern Europe seems to want different things to Western Europe and there's also a split between the Northern states and the Southern states.
Continuing as things are help avoid showing all the fractures.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
04-29-2018, 23:28
I've always thought the EEC was a wise move, and that spreading it to the former Warsaw Pact would be wise. I have always been less sanguine about the EU.
edyzmedieval
04-30-2018, 01:52
Both where it should go... and where it will probably go.
And yes, you're correct, Eastern Europee wants different things but not necessarily all of EE. Romania is more open to more integration.
Can wait for it to die, and just go back to trade. I will get what I want.
I will get what I want.
Your country being a tank refueling stop on the way to France?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-01-2018, 00:41
Your country being a tank refueling stop on the way to France?
You lot avoided it in the first 'War to End All Wars,' and if the Netherlands had ceded that bit South of Roermond to Belgium before the war you'd have probably given them a pass in the second iteration 26 years later. Darned inconvenient bit of geography for the Dutch that panhandle.
Your country being a tank refueling stop on the way to France?
Things itching again with you guys?
HopAlongBunny
05-01-2018, 10:34
Not everyone would agree, but I think the EEC is a brilliant bit of policy.
To really make it work almost requires some form of political integration (imo); confederated states not a unitary state.
To allow for richer supporting poorer members there has to be some sense that WE are in this together, and it has to be based on something besides shear terror at the prospect of Russia finally getting it's act together (although that helps...)
But is such an arrangement destined to be forever a "hub dependency" structure?
To allow for richer supporting poorer members there has to be some sense that WE are in this together, and it has to be based on something besides shear terror at the prospect of Russia finally getting it's act together (although that helps...)
I think younger and more educated people are more likely to see it that way.
And I personally see Russia as a smaller "threat" than global corporations. A corporation that makes more money than a country's GDP will simply not be bound to the laws of that country and I don't see why people think their nation is somehow so great that it can resist. In the worst case a corporation will get a more powerful, bigger country to subdue the smaller one because it has the bigger one sufficiently deep in its pockets as well. See the Argentina thing or several countries being forced to let children smoke or the quote from the Australian media mogul about Downing street doing everything he wants while the EU ignores him.
I simply don't get how people can think a world with small countries and enormous corporate (and personal) wealth in the hands of a few would somehow be good for them. Must like being puppets I guess, praying to be among the better-off puppets.
HopAlongBunny
05-01-2018, 23:15
I think younger and more educated people are more likely to see it that way.
And I personally see Russia as a smaller "threat" than global corporations. A corporation that makes more money than a country's GDP will simply not be bound to the laws of that country and I don't see why people think their nation is somehow so great that it can resist. In the worst case a corporation will get a more powerful, bigger country to subdue the smaller one because it has the bigger one sufficiently deep in its pockets as well. See the Argentina thing or several countries being forced to let children smoke or the quote from the Australian media mogul about Downing street doing everything he wants while the EU ignores him.
I simply don't get how people can think a world with small countries and enormous corporate (and personal) wealth in the hands of a few would somehow be good for them. Must like being puppets I guess, praying to be among the better-off puppets.
I agree.
In fact corporations have other advantages.
Transnational corp's are largely beyond the law in many real senses, further they have nothing but up-side to pushing the boundaries of "mere national" law.
"Oh but they get fined! and sued! and bad-mouthed"
Minor cost of doing business, and only if you get caught. Simply looked at from the point of view of economic size, the fines are laughable.
Even with a "slam dunk" criminal case, charges are unlikely to be laid; their lawyers are better, and their budgets are bigger.
The scariest thing about the E.U. is that it makes a school of sardines into a whale; harder to capture or ignore...possibly dangerous.
Shaka_Khan
05-02-2018, 09:30
What happens in the Brexit will affect an EU country's opinion on its own exit. From what I heard, the pound has weakened and the salaries have gone down. And the imports became more expensive.
What happens in the Brexit will affect an EU country's opinion on its own exit. From what I heard, the pound has weakened and the salaries have gone down. And the imports became more expensive.
A small price for being a sovereign state, it is not realistic that we follow suit with the current political party-kartel but one can hope
Pannonian
05-02-2018, 10:51
A small price for being a sovereign state, it is not realistic that we follow suit with the current political party-kartel but one can hope
Are you coming over to live here any time soon? Or are you going to continue to praise the virtues of Brexit from the safety of Dutchland, deep within the heartland of the EU?
Are you coming over to live here any time soon? Or are you going to continue to praise the virtues of Brexit from the safety of Dutchland, deep within the heartland of the EU?
No bought an apartmentment here, but consider yourself lucky, the EUSSR now demands 300.000.000.000 extra, for an overhead that is totally useless, with a drunk and a failed Dutch politician who nobody ever elected running the show and telling other countries what to do, even what to think
No bought an apartmentment here, but consider yourself lucky, the EUSSR now demands 300.000.000.000 extra, for an overhead that is totally useless, with a drunk and a failed Dutch politician who nobody ever elected running the show and telling other countries what to do, even what to think
As opposed to this forum only having a normal dutch guy telling us what to do and think about the EU? :clown:
As opposed to this forum only having a normal dutch guy telling us what to do and think about the EU? :clown:
Do you think I am the only one that thinks about the EU like I do, that is why the eurocrats want censorship of free thought. And an army. It is so ugly.
Do you think I am the only one that thinks about the EU like I do, that is why the eurocrats want censorship of free thought. And an army. It is so ugly.
No, but three people on a continent of 500 million still don't make a majority and the rest of that sentence is just a conspiracy theory based on nothing but opinion.
No, but three people on a continent of 500 million still don't make a majority and the rest of that sentence is just a conspiracy theory based on nothing but opinion.
Feel free to think so
Pannonian
05-02-2018, 16:40
Do you think I am the only one that thinks about the EU like I do, that is why the eurocrats want censorship of free thought. And an army. It is so ugly.
Over here, as you'd know if you actually lived here rather than pontificating about it from overseas, it's the Brexiteers who are censoring free thought and opposition, accusing dissenters of treason. MPs, judges, and now the Lords who've upheld parliamentary sovereignty over cabinet rule have been named and shamed as enemies of the people. Do you agree with this?
Furunculus
05-02-2018, 17:45
What EU will we get?
My thoughts from a few years back - not significantly changed with the arrival of brexit/macron/etc.
Does Brexit maximise regional harmony (read: the EU)?
That depends on [why] we choose to exit, and [whether] the EU finds a happy outcome for the lack of political legitimacy that hamstrings the economic integration necessary for monetary union to survive. Crucially, it also depends on whether choosing to exit helps or hinders the EU in finding that happy outcome.
There are two visions for Britain outside the EU:
1. One is the Tory driven Vote Leave. It will be business oriented (low regulation), and follow three centuries of Tory foreign policy (outward looking). This is the ‘Singapore on steroids’ version, a high-growth / low-protection model that reverts from social-democracy to market-economy.
2. The second is the UKIP driven Leave.eu. It will be worker oriented (high regulation), and be captured by the reactionary left (inward looking). This is the ‘Belgium on steroids’, a social democracy unencumbered by the market orientation of the EU Commission, and with little use for elective warfare.
There are two visions for Britain inside the EU:
1. One is a German driven Europe of rules. It will be business oriented, and Greece will come to be the template of a ‘wide’ Europe with no sense of common solidarity. This fractious stasis will nevertheless require us to integrate to fight for oxygen in a low adaptability / low growth bloc. Member nations might eventually come to engineer out some of the imperfections of Maastricht and Lisbon, but it will be an antagonistic and inward looking bloc.
2. The second is the French/Italian European people. It will result from peripheral Eurozone members choosing to leave monetary union, and accession states simply refusing to join. In doing this, the six founding members will recognise the common solidarity necessary to legitimise a transfer union at the core of Europe. A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate, this EU would be able to focus on more than zero-sum maneuvering.
A large number of interacting components whose aggregate activity is nonlinear and typically exhibits hierarchical self-organization under selective pressures. Hey, you just described a complex system, I demand you now give me easy answers!
I’ll try:
On the outside, we do at least have a simpler calculation.
Vote Leave won the official designation of the Brexit campaign. With Labour in disarray, if Brexit wins the day then we are looking at Singapore on steroids. We only get the full benefit of this if Europe finds the wherewithal to move beyond the current fractious stasis…
On the inside, it’s a lot trickier.
Everyone understands that the twin aims of a wide Europe with a common currency are totally incompatible. You can have a pre-Maastricht intergovernmental Europe as wide as you care to expand it (no transfer union required), but the EU has gone too far for that now and yet we’re still inexplicably wedded to the idea of ever-closer-union (which demands common solidarity). It sometimes feels that without some creative destruction there is no way for Europe to move beyond paralysis.
From the point of view of Britain; is the EU more likely to achieve the French/Italian European people with us inside (as an advocate for the divergent needs of the periphery), or outside (where the shock of Brexit breaks the fractious stasis)? If we leave, and a German driven Europe of rules persists, will we exacerbate Germany’s unwanted and unhappy dominance (forcing non-euro nations to join, or leave entirely)? If we stay, will it be harder for France to accept that a European People does not need to include every EU nation (thus beginning the core/periphery realignment)?
This is the essential question that nations are wrestling with when they look at the Macron vision of EUrope.
What EU do I want?
I want an EU that does not force the little nations to knuckle under the 'consensus' thrashed out by the bigger boys.
Britain was big enough and ugly enough to carve out the opt-outs it needed, but that is not true of many of the smaller nations.
For this reason i would have been very happy with a remain vote if Belgium had not demanded that exemption to ever closer union must apply only to britain. A more callous and selfish act I have rarely seen!
Since this was the result, i'd be more than happy if we ended up back in EFTA, with the intention of creating a power block to push back against ever closer union.
To be clear, my aim is not to obstruct European nations from going where they want to go, but to prevent the EU from steamrolling nations that don't wish to go with them.
Over here, as you'd know if you actually lived here rather than pontificating about it from overseas, it's the Brexiteers who are censoring free thought and opposition, accusing dissenters of treason. MPs, judges, and now the Lords who've upheld parliamentary sovereignty over cabinet rule have been named and shamed as enemies of the people. Do you agree with this?
Well yes. You can never be too early to identify totaliritism. Maybe I will change my mind if I read more, but so far so good.
Pannonian
05-02-2018, 18:37
Well yes. You can never be too early to identify totaliritism. Maybe I will change my mind if I read more, but so far so good.
You agree with the painting of political opponents as traitors? Putting faces and names on the front page of a national newspaper and labelling them as "enemies of the people"?
Well yes. You can never be too early to identify totaliritism. Maybe I will change my mind if I read more, but so far so good.
You think the EU has totalitarian tendencies, but you kinda like Trump, think Putin is harmless?
You agree with the painting of political opponents as traitors? Putting faces and names on the front page of a national newspaper and labelling them as "enemies of the people"?
Newspapers are nothing more than lifestyle magazines printed on dead trees with some casual news included, and should be treated as such
Pannonian
05-02-2018, 19:12
Newspapers are nothing more than lifestyle magazines printed on dead trees with some casual news included, and should be treated as such
Easily dismissed by someone living in Dutchland, who doesn't have to face the consequences of that of which he spouts. Just like the 90s neolibs whom I despised.
Greyblades
05-02-2018, 19:22
What happens in the Brexit will affect an EU country's opinion on its own exit. From what I heard, the pound has weakened and the salaries have gone down. And the imports became more expensive.
The EU has a tightrope to cross: to accomidating a departure would undermine the EU's necessity, too punishing and they would risk reminding the east of the warsaw pact.
Of course with our current lack of leadership its probable any punishment might be indistinguishable from May's self destructive flailing.
Pannonian
05-02-2018, 19:41
The EU has a tightrope to cross: to accomidating a departure would undermine the EU's necessity, too punishing and they would risk reminding the east of the warsaw pact.
Of course with our current lack of leadership its probable any punishment might be indistinguishable from May's self destructive flailing.
Polls across the EU indicate Clemenceau more than the Warsaw Pact. Nearly everyone wants to squeeze the UK until the pips squeak for this decision of ours. A moderate government might look at the margin and decide the mandate isn't there for radicalism. But the Leavers have interpreted the result to mean that the victor gets the spoils while the vanquished gets ground into the dirt. No matter how little the actions have in common with the promises of the Leave campaign.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-02-2018, 21:03
Polls across the EU indicate Clemenceau more than the Warsaw Pact. Nearly everyone wants to squeeze the UK until the pips squeak for this decision of ours. A moderate government might look at the margin and decide the mandate isn't there for radicalism. But the Leavers have interpreted the result to mean that the victor gets the spoils while the vanquished gets ground into the dirt. No matter how little the actions have in common with the promises of the Leave campaign.
Clemenceau is better than Lincoln. Lincoln saw to it that a secession attempt was punishable by force of arms.
Greyblades
05-03-2018, 02:48
I somehow doubt the desire to "squeeze the pips" of anyone who dares to leave is a one shared uniformly across the union, particularly not in the areas who still retain living memory of being in the previous intertantional group that was dangerous to leave.
Pannonian
05-03-2018, 05:34
I somehow doubt the desire to "squeeze the pips" of anyone who dares to leave is a one shared uniformly across the union, particularly not in the areas who still retain living memory of being in the previous intertantional group that was dangerous to leave.
See Malta's demand to make it clear that we'll be worse off outside than inside. And Malta has been traditionally pro-UK. See also our attitude to Poles, and the Polish government's disapproval of said attitude. That's another traditionally pro-UK country. Ironically, the accession of eastern Europe was the UK's price during Thatcher's negotiations in return for allowing the single currency to go ahead. And now the influx of eastern Europeans due to the single market (another British idea) is the principal reason why people voted Leave.
See Malta's demand to make it clear that we'll be worse off outside than inside. And Malta has been traditionally pro-UK. See also our attitude to Poles, and the Polish government's disapproval of said attitude. That's another traditionally pro-UK country. Ironically, the accession of eastern Europe was the UK's price during Thatcher's negotiations in return for allowing the single currency to go ahead. And now the influx of eastern Europeans due to the single market (another British idea) is the principal reason why people voted Leave.
The Poles are not so pro-EU now that the EU is meddling with their democracy, eastern Europe has seen it all before
Furunculus
05-03-2018, 07:54
relevant:
https://www.ft.com/content/f6634708-4c52-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4
edyzmedieval
05-04-2018, 00:38
Can't see the FT article - but the title is curious. Isolation of Macron?
Pannonian
05-04-2018, 05:28
Can't see the FT article - but the title is curious. Isolation of Macron?
Scientists have isolated the Macron particle. It's a huge development in the realm of Quantum Theory.
Furunculus
05-04-2018, 07:29
Scientists have isolated the Macron particle. It's a huge development in the realm of Quantum Theory.
https://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Ff6634708-4c52-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
no takers on my comment on the previous page?
https://www.google.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Ff6634708-4c52-11e8-97e4-13afc22d86d4&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
no takers on my comment on the previous page?
It is behind a paywall. But everybody knows what Macron wants anyway, more money for Franceś agricultural sector (where it is hardly used for and who wants to take a bite out of polluted food anyway) and Germany and the Netherlands must pay it
Furunculus
05-04-2018, 09:07
strange, works for me when i open it from a google search string.
an excerpt from the ft article on macron:
"...The British were very appreciative of French support in the recent confrontation with Russia. But ad hoc moments of strategic co-operation between Britain and France, against the background of Brexit, are not a basis for Mr Macron to be the “leader” of a new western alliance.
France’s other possibilities do not look any more promising. Mr Macron is unwilling to position himself as the leader of a southern European faction, lest this stoke German suspicions of French fiscal laxity. Italy, dominated by the populists of the Five Star movement and the League, is anyway not a natural partner for France. The Dutch, meanwhile, are moulding a new, informal “ Hanseatic League ” of northern European countries that is even more suspicious of Mr Macron’s proposed eurozone reforms than the Germans.
Central Europe looks even worse. The French president has led the way in condemning “authoritarian democracy”, an unmistakable reference to the current governments of Hungary and Poland. His frankness is welcome and bold. But it is not winning many friends in central European chancelleries.
The one part of the EU where Mr Macron gets full-throated support is Brussels. In the corridors of the European Commission, the French president is regarded as a hero. But elsewhere in Brussels there are complications. The fact that Mr Macron leads a new party, La République en Marche, means that his supporters are not part of the established power structures in the European Parliament — which is a problem when it comes to shaping legislation and parcelling out the top jobs..."
Brexit pays of ;) (sorry Pan I had to)
strange, works for me when i open it from a google search string.
Sorry, unable to read it. Looked like it was potentially interesting though.
Furunculus
05-04-2018, 13:03
text ^ above ^
rory_20_uk
05-04-2018, 13:59
If one were to view Yes Prime Minister as Government policy (which is is not - although apparently closer than was comfortable for the politicians / civil service of the day) the UK got into the Europe "thing" to make a mess of it. And now we have managed to bring in loads of Eastern Europeans our job is done - it is again an unwieldy mess with different partners having different visions of what they want (and several countries positivity is directly related to the amount of money they get and the interference they receive)...
If the EU splits to North / South (broadly) I would be wishful of a "Nordic League" that the Tribes of Germanic Heritage (a meaningless grouping to be sure) could be a part of. The Scottish wouldn't be welcome of course. Well, perhaps right at the top...
~:smoking:
Pannonian
05-04-2018, 15:19
If one were to view Yes Prime Minister as Government policy (which is is not - although apparently closer than was comfortable for the politicians / civil service of the day) the UK got into the Europe "thing" to make a mess of it. And now we have managed to bring in loads of Eastern Europeans our job is done - it is again an unwieldy mess with different partners having different visions of what they want (and several countries positivity is directly related to the amount of money they get and the interference they receive)...
If the EU splits to North / South (broadly) I would be wishful of a "Nordic League" that the Tribes of Germanic Heritage (a meaningless grouping to be sure) could be a part of. The Scottish wouldn't be welcome of course. Well, perhaps right at the top...
~:smoking:
The Blair administration used to view Yes Minister as an accurate documentary portraying what government was really like. Which bemused one of his ministers, who was one of the main insider sources for said programme. Yes Minister is a comedy.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-04-2018, 17:00
The Blair administration used to view Yes Minister as an accurate documentary portraying what government was really like. Which bemused one of his ministers, who was one of the main insider sources for said programme. Yes Minister is a comedy.
Life is comedy.
a completely inoffensive name
05-07-2018, 06:47
Brexit supporters have too much pride.
A divided Europe is weaker than a unified Europe. Sure, I can wave the Californian Flag and circle jerk about the 4 months of Californian independence before someone saw a Union soldier and said "oh yeah, we're totally American's"... but the reality is that California, the world's now fifth largest economy (suck it UK) is better off being tied to Alabama, Colorado, and 47 other states that have completely different ideologies and economies.
Proud of what, the reality is that it's dumpplace for politicians who screwed up nationally, it is nothing but a VERY expensive overhead
a completely inoffensive name
05-07-2018, 07:13
Proud of what, the reality is that it's dumpplace for politicians who screwed up nationally, it is nothing but a VERY expensive overhead
Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.
Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.
Pannonian
05-07-2018, 07:32
Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.
Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.
It wouldn't be quite so hypocritical if Frag were saying, "I'm out." He's saying, "They're out", opting to live within the EU whilst arguing that all the hardships of Brexit will be worth it.
Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.
Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.
A unified army are you kidding me, do you think that armies stationed will be from their own state. They know exactly what they are doing
Furunculus
05-07-2018, 08:33
Brexit supporters have too much pride.
A divided Europe is weaker than a unified Europe. Sure, I can wave the Californian Flag and circle jerk about the 4 months of Californian independence before someone saw a Union soldier and said "oh yeah, we're totally American's"... but the reality is that California, the world's now fifth largest economy (suck it UK) is better off being tied to Alabama, Colorado, and 47 other states that have completely different ideologies and economies.
fine, well then, let's see how many Remainer's are comfortable with the idea of Britain being a the 51st state of america. with [all] that entails...
Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.
Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.
How about; we don't assent to common governance. Stop.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-07-2018, 15:50
Instead of focusing your skepticism on isolationism and nationalism, instead channel it into a means of progress through reform.
A unified army WHEN we get better representation through x,y,z reforms.
A strong Federal government WHEN we get better accountability through x,y,z reforms.
Why is there this disconnect that in politics we are so eager to say "fuck it, I'm out" when in life, love, and family we innately understand that communication and changes are necessary in order to achieve goals and desires.
ACIN makes a good point, Frags. After all, you would be hard pressed to find a great number of opponents of the EEC. Economic coordination was a boon to Europe on any number of levels. ACIN suggests that, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you and others of like mind call the EU politicos to task and dial back those aspects of integration that are too intrusive without discarding those that add value.
Not sure of the practical difficulties in that approach, but ACIN is making a generally valuable point.
Pannonian
05-07-2018, 16:45
ACIN makes a good point, Frags. After all, you would be hard pressed to find a great number of opponents of the EEC. Economic coordination was a boon to Europe on any number of levels. ACIN suggests that, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you and others of like mind call the EU politicos to task and dial back those aspects of integration that are too intrusive without discarding those that add value.
Not sure of the practical difficulties in that approach, but ACIN is making a generally valuable point.
But Frag isn't throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not his baby, anyway. Someone else's baby is being dumped in the drains along with the bathwater, but that's an acceptable sacrifice as it's all for the greater good. In the future, when that baby's parents realise what they've done and realise they'll have no more babies, they'll still say, it's all been worth it, as Frag and his family has been telling them all along.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-07-2018, 17:37
But Frag isn't throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not his baby, anyway. Someone else's baby is being dumped in the drains along with the bathwater, but that's an acceptable sacrifice as it's all for the greater good. In the future, when that baby's parents realise what they've done and realise they'll have no more babies, they'll still say, it's all been worth it, as Frag and his family has been telling them all along.
Well, it is true that Frags has no "skin in the game" so to speak. Still, I don't think he's alone in decrying EU pols or noting that the entire institution is far from flawless.
You have consistently hammered Frags for this, but to be fair, there are a number of folks making commentary here -- myself included -- who do not have a direct stake in the Brexit process?/roller-coaster?/fiasco? and yet are commenting here.
The "only a person who was part of it can know the truth" bit was part of Faurisson's assertions that the Holocaust was not provable to have occurred. You're quite aware of this being an intellectual "cheat" since people can and do learn of something without first hand experience. So why quite so hard on Frags on that aspect of his argument?
Well, it is true that Frags has no "skin in the game" so to speak. Still, I don't think he's alone in decrying EU pols or noting that the entire institution is far from flawless.
As if the national governments that created this institution were actually better. Why replace a flawed institution with a terrible one?
The EU is a good example of what can happen if you do something half-arsed, with the problem that not doing it at all is still worse.
In a world where everything needs to grow not to be outpaced, you cannot just expect the Netherlands to grow to 100 million inhabitants in order to not become insignificant. Instead they have to unite with neighbors to keep up. The union they have now is only half-baked however, so on the one hand they perceive it as not important enough to vote in its elections or to pressure for reform, on the other hand it seems important enough to complain about how it oppresses everyone.
It's basically a just a scapegoat for people who eat at McDonald's, buy groceries at ALDI, furniture at IKEA, Pizza at the Italian place, decorate their homes with African art, buy only German/Japanese cars, use US-invented, China-made computer, wear jeans from Turkey and T-Shirts from Bangladesh and hate globalism for ruining their lives while they oppose any laws that could reign in the free market and the rights of corporations to do whatever they want. :clown:
Pannonian
05-07-2018, 19:06
Well, it is true that Frags has no "skin in the game" so to speak. Still, I don't think he's alone in decrying EU pols or noting that the entire institution is far from flawless.
You have consistently hammered Frags for this, but to be fair, there are a number of folks making commentary here -- myself included -- who do not have a direct stake in the Brexit process?/roller-coaster?/fiasco? and yet are commenting here.
The "only a person who was part of it can know the truth" bit was part of Faurisson's assertions that the Holocaust was not provable to have occurred. You're quite aware of this being an intellectual "cheat" since people can and do learn of something without first hand experience. So why quite so hard on Frags on that aspect of his argument?
There's a difference between analysing a situation using evidence, which anyone can do, and making value judgements, which Frag is doing. Alone of the non-Brits, Frag is saying that the Brits should be making these sacrifices because it'll all be worth it. I feel that that kind of judgement should be left to those who have to face the consequences. Like I've said before, the neolibs of the 90s made the same arguments for Yeltsin's Russia, saying that the pain will be worth it, whilst not having to face any of that pain themselves. I despised the neolibs then, and I despise non-British Brexiteers now.
Furunculus
05-07-2018, 19:53
Do I merit your hatred too?
Montmorency
05-07-2018, 20:08
How about; we don't assent to common governance. Stop.
I'm still not sure why the clear alternative to "common governance" isn't intensifying deterritorialization of governance.
Or is it another layer of my misunderstanding of your position and
What EU will we get?
My thoughts from a few years back - not significantly changed with the arrival of brexit/macron/etc.
Does Brexit maximise regional harmony (read: the EU)?
[...]
What EU do I want?
I want an EU that does not force the little nations to knuckle under the 'consensus' thrashed out by the bigger boys.
Britain was big enough and ugly enough to carve out the opt-outs it needed, but that is not true of many of the smaller nations.
For this reason i would have been very happy with a remain vote if Belgium had not demanded that exemption to ever closer union must apply only to britain. A more callous and selfish act I have rarely seen!
Since this was the result, i'd be more than happy if we ended up back in EFTA, with the intention of creating a power block to push back against ever closer union.
To be clear, my aim is not to obstruct European nations from going where they want to go, but to prevent the EU from steamrolling nations that don't wish to go with them.
is actually a dialectical argument that considers instigating a crisis in the system as part of the path to a resolution (like Slavoj Zizek (https://platypus1917.org/2017/08/29/slavoj-zizek-donald-trump-left/) on global capitalism and the Trump election)?
Social engineering is always a gamble. :shrug:
Pannonian
05-07-2018, 20:13
Do I merit your hatred too?
Are you going to be living in the UK post-Brexit? Farage's hurried registration of his family with German passports merits my contempt.
There's a difference between analysing a situation using evidence, which anyone can do, and making value judgements, which Frag is doing. Alone of the non-Brits, Frag is saying that the Brits should be making these sacrifices because it'll all be worth it. I feel that that kind of judgement should be left to those who have to face the consequences. Like I've said before, the neolibs of the 90s made the same arguments for Yeltsin's Russia, saying that the pain will be worth it, whilst not having to face any of that pain themselves. I despised the neolibs then, and I despise non-British Brexiteers now.
Oh stop falling in love with me it makes me blush
a completely inoffensive name
05-08-2018, 06:24
fine, well then, let's see how many Remainer's are comfortable with the idea of Britain being a the 51st state of america. with [all] that entails...
I don't understand the point, if we offered and you had appropriate representation...wouldn't it be a good idea?
How about; we don't assent to common governance. Stop.
But you are already under a common governance with three other countries [no I don't care about the details of verbiage and UK history/structure, it is not relevant to the point].
How is the European Union any less arbitrary than your current political union?
a completely inoffensive name
05-08-2018, 06:34
ACIN makes a good point, Frags. After all, you would be hard pressed to find a great number of opponents of the EEC. Economic coordination was a boon to Europe on any number of levels. ACIN suggests that, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you and others of like mind call the EU politicos to task and dial back those aspects of integration that are too intrusive without discarding those that add value.
Not sure of the practical difficulties in that approach, but ACIN is making a generally valuable point.
The UK has been allowed to leave not just in theory but in practice. Therefore any country is free to leave at any point and with that freedom of choice provides leverage.
I initially thought that the Tory's were going to do exactly that when the Brexit vote happened. Well, we must leave unless you can make an offer that we can give back to the people as a show of good faith towards a fairer union.
To be honest, I have not followed Brexit that much, but either the EU was OK with UK leaving which just perplexes me because that seems like a loss no matter how they spin it OR the Tories really screwed up by going straight to "we're out".
Future votes to leave the EU and subsequent fallout will be handled very differently.
Furunculus
05-08-2018, 07:59
I'm still not sure why the clear alternative to "common governance" isn't intensifying deterritorialization of governance.
It isn't a clear alternative to anything, as international treaty law with its spongy interpretability and poor understood mandate is an exceedingly poor way to govern social interaction.
Further, we all clearly submit to common governance (with the possible exception of somalia), but there is no moral reasoning that would necessitate a nation of people assenting to a governance by a different polity if that was not their express wish.
Or is it another layer of my misunderstanding of your position and is actually a dialectical argument that considers instigating a crisis in the system as part of the path to a resolution (like Slavoj Zizek (https://platypus1917.org/2017/08/29/slavoj-zizek-donald-trump-left/) on global capitalism and the Trump election)?
Closer, but dialectical in what sense? I tend to talk about it in fairly dry terms, but the subject discussed is politics and political identity, and ultimately that is a matter of personal sentiment and emotional attachment.
I do think the Zizek argument has some application here, as I believe the EU to be a dysfunctional form of government in being unable to usefully represent the desires of its various people[s] it has a tendency to stasis. Which makes it an inflexible construct that has low adaptability to accommodate shifting circumstances.
Social engineering is always a gamble. :shrug:
Agreed. A charge I would lay at the feet of the pro-eu elites in two separate parts; 1. with the likes of new labour treating mass immigration as a tool for social transformation. 2. on the part of eu policy makers that seek to enhance and promote regional identity within the EU such that national identity loses tractability and visibility. Was the context in which you raised the point?
The UK has been allowed to leave not just in theory but in practice. Therefore any country is free to leave at any point and with that freedom of choice provides leverage.
I initially thought that the Tory's were going to do exactly that when the Brexit vote happened. Well, we must leave unless you can make an offer that we can give back to the people as a show of good faith towards a fairer union.
To be honest, I have not followed Brexit that much, but either the EU was OK with UK leaving which just perplexes me because that seems like a loss no matter how they spin it OR the Tories really screwed up by going straight to "we're out".
Future votes to leave the EU and subsequent fallout will be handled very differently.
Very differently yes, that is why there can not be such a thing as a unified army, it is a mostly useless bureaucracy that has little reason to exist, but will fight to stay alive
Seamus Fermanagh
05-08-2018, 15:14
Very differently yes, that is why there can not be such a thing as a unified army, it is a mostly useless bureaucracy that has little reason to exist, but will fight to stay alive
Fragony:
Some of the pro EU crowd no doubt hope that a 'unified army' will be unifying of Europe. That soldiers, trained to high standard and enculturated to serve the whole entity rather than a part of it, enculturated to support and defend the compact that is the EU and not its constituents, will yield a steadily growing number of citizens and leaders whose allegiance is to the entity of the whole and not of the particulars. This is not an impossible goal.
However, to really enact this kind of enculturation, the EU would need to conduct all of the training of such forces for the first several years of service and would have to put formations together without regard for place of origin -- stapling together a "unified" army from extant formations in the existing NATO force structure will not accomplish any meaningful cultural change -- it would be a patchwork at best and a Frankenstein's monster at worst.
Given your adamant opposition to the EU, I would think you would WANT them to enact and deploy that patchwork. I can think of few things that would undermine the EU more effectively then the EU leadership sending Scandinavian (for e.g.) troops to force compliance from Catalonia or deploying Poles to require Sweden to accept a greater share of immigrant refugees etc. That's the kind of 'foreign occupation' thing most guaranteed to place the population in opposition to EU leadership.
Montmorency
05-08-2018, 15:33
It isn't a clear alternative to anything, as international treaty law with its spongy interpretability and poor understood mandate is an exceedingly poor way to govern social interaction.
Further, we all clearly submit to common governance (with the possible exception of somalia), but there is no moral reasoning that would necessitate a nation of people assenting to a governance by a different polity if that was not their express wish.
Deterritorialization.
Your preference/expectation for a successful Brexit is a Singapore model, a market economy of services. A globally-embedded market economy necessarily removes local control in favor of the interests of influential horizontally-mobile market actors, and a service economy in this context is heavily fluctuating and precarious as the small fry contract on an irregular basis and desperately compete to maintain value against one another. In other words, intensifying the economic trends of the past two generations.
I guess, as with Singapore, wealthy technocrats heavily repress personal rights and social group interests to maintain conditions for market churn? Why not a Lichtenstein model, a minimally-populated tax haven free market utopia (https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/22_1_14.pdf?file=1&type=document) that is HOLY CRAP A LITERAL MONARCHY (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-liechtenstein-vote-prince/liechtenstein-votes-to-keep-princes-veto-idUSBRE86008W20120701).
Socialists like Corbyn of course have a different take on the opportunities of Brexit. I'll present their view later on. A little bit like your A2 "UKIP[???]-driven scenario"; I can't help but feel they're too optimistic about their case, since your scenario is the default trend for the world at-large regardless of Brexit.
Agreed. A charge I would lay at the feet of the pro-eu elites in two separate parts; 1. with the likes of new labour treating mass immigration as a tool for social transformation. 2. on the part of eu policy makers that seek to enhance and promote regional identity within the EU such that national identity loses tractability and visibility. Was the context in which you raised the point?
Hasn't the fatal flaw with the European Union been that the leadership wanted it both ways, broad new institutions and agendas without taking the effort or commitment to reshaping the popular consciousness?
You seemed to advance that a non-failed Brexit is the best case for pushing the EU into the form you would like to see it take, something that itself depends on dramatic future shifts in the consciousness and attitudes of various national populations (facilitated by political and economic shocks of Brexit).
So, social engineering at a certain remove.
Strike For The South
05-08-2018, 15:42
It's bacon and eggs for breakfast and the EU is selling chicken when they need to be selling pig.
Furunculus
05-08-2018, 16:29
I don't understand the point, if we offered and you had appropriate representation...wouldn't it be a good idea?
But you are already under a common governance with three other countries [no I don't care about the details of verbiage and UK history/structure, it is not relevant to the point].
How is the European Union any less arbitrary than your current political union?
For myself, I'd be no less comfortable with the US than the EU, but then the US leans toward my preferences in focusing more on individual liberty than group equality, limited gov't, and and activist foreign policy. But I think we all know that our ardent remainders here would spit tacks if the prospect were in the offing.
Sure, but every form of representative governance is a compromise that best meets the will of the group. The wider the ideological gulf of the group the less satisfactory the end compromise, and the less efficient the action of government in seeking to make and implement policy. The EU is already in lowest common denominator territory. And again, I'm not obliged to accept it.
Pannonian
05-08-2018, 17:00
For myself, I'd be no less comfortable with the US than the EU, but then the US leans toward my preferences in focusing more on individual liberty than group equality, limited gov't, and and activist foreign policy. But I think we all know that our ardent remainders here would spit tacks if the prospect were in the offing.
Sure, but every form of representative governance is a compromise that best meets the will of the group. The wider the ideological gulf of the group the less satisfactory the end compromise, and the less efficient the action of government in seeking to make and implement policy. The EU is already in lowest common denominator territory. And again, I'm not obliged to accept it.
The US interpretation of the Second Amendment is far more removed from any society I identify with than anything the EU has come up with.
Fragony:
Some of the pro EU crowd no doubt hope that a 'unified army' will be unifying of Europe. That soldiers, trained to high standard and enculturated to serve the whole entity rather than a part of it, enculturated to support and defend the compact that is the EU and not its constituents, will yield a steadily growing number of citizens and leaders whose allegiance is to the entity of the whole and not of the particulars. This is not an impossible goal.
However, to really enact this kind of enculturation, the EU would need to conduct all of the training of such forces for the first several years of service and would have to put formations together without regard for place of origin -- stapling together a "unified" army from extant formations in the existing NATO force structure will not accomplish any meaningful cultural change -- it would be a patchwork at best and a Frankenstein's monster at worst.
Given your adamant opposition to the EU, I would think you would WANT them to enact and deploy that patchwork. I can think of few things that would undermine the EU more effectively then the EU leadership sending Scandinavian (for e.g.) troops to force compliance from Catalonia or deploying Poles to require Sweden to accept a greater share of immigrant refugees etc. That's the kind of 'foreign occupation' thing most guaranteed to place the population in opposition to EU leadership.
The EU has a very high probability to turn into a whacked dyspotia, one that was never needed. Itś a political project at first, free trade already was there. Congratulate us with a new aristocracy
The EU has a very high probability to turn into a whacked dyspotia, one that was never needed. Itś a political project at first, free trade already was there. Congratulate us with a new aristocracy
No it's not. It's a wonderful utopia that we desperately need. It's a project of the people at first and a natural consequence of free trade and a love for peace and prosperity for all.
Montmorency
05-09-2018, 00:39
It's bacon and eggs for breakfast and the EU is selling chicken when they need to be selling pig.
The Chicken is involved, but the Pig is committed! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicken_and_the_Pig)
So the Pig is, like, Jesus?
No it's not. It's a wonderful utopia that we desperately need. It's a project of the people at first and a natural consequence of free trade and a love for peace and prosperity for all.
No it is a parasitical overhead that gets into your pants
Furunculus
05-09-2018, 07:51
Deterritorialization.
Having read The Rule of Law in Crisis and Conflict Grey Zones, Regulating the Use of Force in a Global Information Environment, I chose to read the word above as the use of international normative law. An emerging doctrine that essentially gives life to the concept, but since it is not accepted and universal fact the enormous majority of de-territorial law is in fact international treaty. Which would fail for the reasons specified, and there is nothing to indicate that normative law does not suffer the same problems. Do you have a different interpretation?
Your preference/expectation for a successful Brexit is a Singapore model, a market economy of services. A globally-embedded market economy necessarily removes local control in favor of the interests of influential horizontally-mobile market actors, and a service economy in this context is heavily fluctuating and precarious as the small fry contract on an irregular basis and desperately compete to maintain value against one another. In other words, intensifying the economic trends of the past two generations.
Everything is relative. A Singapore in europe doesn't have to be anything more than a nation that keeps public spending at 5% of GDP lower than the median for the EU, with regulation at a similar level of unobtrusiveness. Let's say 37.5% (versus 42.5%), and our existing penchant for non-socialised regulation of finance, energy, gm, etc.
I guess, as with Singapore, wealthy technocrats heavily repress personal rights and social group interests to maintain conditions for market churn? Why not a Lichtenstein model, a minimally-populated tax haven free market utopia (https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/22_1_14.pdf?file=1&type=document) that is HOLY CRAP A LITERAL MONARCHY (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-liechtenstein-vote-prince/liechtenstein-votes-to-keep-princes-veto-idUSBRE86008W20120701).
So I don't really think this scenario applies. Afterall, it isn't like the rest of the anglosphere doesn't operate on exactly the same basis already.
Socialists like Corbyn of course have a different take on the opportunities of Brexit. I'll present their view later on. A little bit like your A2 "UKIP[???]-driven scenario"; I can't help but feel they're too optimistic about their case, since your scenario is the default trend for the world at-large regardless of Brexit.
I would be keen to hear some try and put a structure on how the corbynite left hopes to succeed as a left-wing country outside the protectionist bloc that enables such structure...
Hasn't the fatal flaw with the European Union been that the leadership wanted it both ways, broad new institutions and agendas without taking the effort or commitment to reshaping the popular consciousness?
Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day it is just politics (and it is just that), and i'm not obliged to assent to it.
You seemed to advance that a non-failed Brexit is the best case for pushing the EU into the form you would like to see it take, something that itself depends on dramatic future shifts in the consciousness and attitudes of various national populations (facilitated by political and economic shocks of Brexit).
So, social engineering at a certain remove.
Not social engineering, political engineering. A process that happens all the time everywhere, as governence must perforce respond to changing circumstances.
To be specific: do you think my scenarios of the EU evolution are realistic? And what might you suggest in their stead?
You are lucky, Germany and France might fuck but they do not make love, in the end France is a whore who wants money and Germany gladly gives it if nonody tells his wife. Basic EU-politics explained.
No it is a parasitical overhead that gets into your pants
I've got to be numb there because I never noticed.
The only thing I did notice was that I could call my dad in your country without having to worry about roaming fees.
You are lucky, Germany and France might fuck but they do not make love, in the end France is a whore who wants money and Germany gladly gives it if nonody tells his wife. Basic EU-politics explained.
I notice a trend here...
What happened to Squirrels and Ferrets? Are you switching over to dark fantasy or argument noir?
If they can why can't I, oh right, fake news, I forgot that everytihing anti-EU is fake-news
If they can why can't I, oh right, fake news, I forgot that everytihing anti-EU is fake-news
You can come here and call your mom without roaming fees. Don't worry so much about these fake news.
Furunculus
05-09-2018, 22:06
Socialists like Corbyn of course have a different take on the opportunities of Brexit. I'll present their view later on. A little bit like your A2 "UKIP[???]-driven scenario"; I can't help but feel they're too optimistic about their case, since your scenario is the default trend for the world at-large regardless of Brexit.
Paul Mason has beaten you to it:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/05/labour-needs-wage-war-eu-neoliberalism-prevent-brussels-sabotage
For the left, however, the social market economy is the specific European form of neoliberalism: it prefers private over public, vaunts market mechanism over state direction or subsidy, relies on effective competition to make capitalism fairer, rather than strong regulation. The Bad Godesberg principle adopted by the German social democrats in 1959 – market where possible, state where necessary – was never accepted by British social democracy at the time, and has come to embody the neoliberal reflexes through which Germany runs, dominates and exploits the Eurozone.
A third problem is the domestic political reality Labour expects to face as it enacts the most radical left programme any major country has ever undertaken. The “very British coup” scenario is a non-starter. But mild civil service obstruction, combined with destabilisation by private security and intelligence firms, combined with the nabobs of Brussels issuing arbitrary and vindictive rulings, combined with 30-odd Blairite Labour rebels … that’s what Corbyn needs to guard against.
Montmorency
05-09-2018, 23:20
Having read The Rule of Law in Crisis and Conflict Grey Zones, Regulating the Use of Force in a Global Information Environment, I chose to read the word above as the use of international normative law. An emerging doctrine that essentially gives life to the concept, but since it is not accepted and universal fact the enormous majority of de-territorial law is in fact international treaty. Which would fail for the reasons specified, and there is nothing to indicate that normative law does not suffer the same problems. Do you have a different interpretation?
Well off the mark. I meant it as derived from the Deleuzian/accelerationist sense, but we don't care about those labels so in the concrete sense of political controls being diffused into the hands of trans-national elites, for instance by virtue of their market clout and the overriding imperatives of their economic framework. C.f. what googling the term gets:
the severance of social, political, or cultural practices from their native places and populations.
This is exactly what I've been trying to refer to you over time, that leaving the EU ub favor of liberalization to all comers clearly - or if you don't agree with "clearly", then suggestively enough that you can't ignore the possibility - eliminates more popular control, or at least popularly-responsive control, than EU membership ever could in the medium-term.
As I said, Corbyn appears to believe otherwise, that Brexit is an opportunity to show that the capitalist system can be defied. Summary in a followup post. Pre-emptively I'll state that I think the UK is too small and weak to accomplish this, that the concert of explicit and implicit controls of the world economy, institutions, and state actors results in the rapid and premature electoral expulsion of a radical Labour government. Alternatively, Labour would have to install a socialist-in-name dictatorship and emulate the quasi-self sufficiency of Cuba, an outcome that can hardly be called inspiring (inspiration matters in setting an example to other countries' socialist movements) and one that cannot shield the UK in the long-term context of persistent international capitalism (every factor in the world, from political to technological to ecological, inciting the implosion of the country).
In a world of islands the UK would not be allowed to pretend to be an island, in other words. Maybe EU membership overall provides some sort of buffer, when you need every edge you can get.
Everything is relative. A Singapore in europe doesn't have to be anything more than a nation that keeps public spending at 5% of GDP lower than the median for the EU, with regulation at a similar level of unobtrusiveness. Let's say 37.5% (versus 42.5%), and our existing penchant for non-socialised regulation of finance, energy, gm, etc.
What makes a Singapore from the spending-GDP ratio? It sounds like you're saying not a particular policy, but simply keeping overall spending below 40% of GDP will automatically reproduce some aspect of the Singapore model.
So I don't really think this scenario applies. Afterall, it isn't like the rest of the anglosphere doesn't operate on exactly the same basis already.
What are you referring to?
Anyway, what exact features you envision for a Singapore model, whether these are desirable for most people, and if they are compatible with other narrow aspects of your preferred state (e.g. military interventionism) are a separate topic and beside the point. I'm more interested in why you assent to one kind of politics and not another, and what contradictions are present.
Not social engineering, political engineering. A process that happens all the time everywhere, as governance must perforce respond to changing circumstances.
It strikes me as a kind of misuse of the term to, as I suppose you are doing, limit it to the continuous efforts of a central government. Why should private groups and discrete political events be excluded if they arrive at the same type of result? Which is not to say that there is a linear correlation between the aims of the engineers and the actual product, just the opposite. There are always unforeseen consequences. That's why I called it a gamble.
To be specific: do you think my scenarios of the EU evolution are realistic? And what might you suggest in their stead?
I said I believe something like your Singapore - more broadly speaking, liberalized dissolution - is the default scenario for the UK, applicable in or out of the EU but with more rapid development outside. Some would call that "pessimism".
Montmorency
05-10-2018, 00:12
Paul Mason has beaten you to it:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/05/labour-needs-wage-war-eu-neoliberalism-prevent-brussels-sabotage
In that case, I'll just compare two angles. [My summaries are respectively ~500 and ~1500 words, read them]
Mason's article:
The EU is a German neoliberal vehicle that seeks to constrain social democracy in the UK to promote its business interests, so a kind of neo-mercantilism. Countries bound in the EU have to operate within certain parameters of state action to keep a "level playing field".
[Modifying Lisbon treaty and capturing European parliament] have to be part of a self-preservation strategy.
Customs union or single market membership is OK as long as there are exemptions from EEA rules. Author prefers a Norway-plus model, but if it and its attendant regulatory autonomies are not possible, then customs-union-only has to be accepted [sounds a lot like Furunc].
However, the real threat is active ideological containment measures on the part of the EU ruling class, such as were undertaken in Greece in 2015. A binding agreement is necessary over potential future Labour government initiatives [isn't that putting cart before horse, does Labour have power in the first place to ensure such a thing?]. Also, civil service and private obstructionists against a Corbyn/radical Labour government would find it harder to justify themselves without appealing to EU intransigence or disapproval.
Pro-EU British liberals think of the EU as more social-democratic than neoliberal, but the Left should disagree (see Furunc's quote). EU promotes "privatisation, outsourcing and deregulation", which can go against national interests. Also, like individual nations, the EU is vulnerable to being captured by the far-right currents du jour, and the unelected Commission even more so.
So Labour needs to do what European social democracy should have done years ago: go to war on the Lisbon Treaty inside the EU, co-ordinating with any social democratic, green and left party in Europe prepared to join in.
[...]
The immediate aims a new EU left alliance should not be a detailed programme or a new party. It should be a declaration in principle against three things: austerity, xenophobia and the erosion of democracy.
European Left alliance forms faction in European parliament and tries to capture Commission presidency.
If the combined forces of progressive Europe could muster enough votes to win the spitzenkandidat election, the appointed boss of the Commission could then appoint a left-led commission. At this point we would find out exactly how much left politics the EU structures can bear.
[Those last are the most interesting bits in the article.]
************
Why the Left Should Embrace Brexit (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/04/brexit-labour-party-socialist-left-corbyn)
othing better reflects the muddled thinking of the mainstream European left than its stance on Brexit. Each week seems to produce a new chapter for the Brexit scare story: withdrawing from the EU will be an economic disaster for the UK; tens of thousands of jobs will be lost; human rights will be eviscerated; the principles of fair trials, free speech, and decent labor standards will all be compromised. In short, Brexit will transform Britain into a dystopia, a failed state — or worse, an international pariah — cut off from the civilized world. Against this backdrop it’s easy to see why Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is often criticized for his unwillingness to adopt a pro-Remain agenda.
The Left’s anti-Brexit hysteria, however, is based on a mixture of bad economics, flawed understanding of the European Union, and lack of political imagination. Not only is there no reason to believe that Brexit would be an economic apocalypse; more importantly, abandoning the EU provides the British left — and the European left more generally — with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to show that a radical break with neoliberalism, and with the institutions that support it, is possible.
Predictions and models of British economic malaise post-Brexit (specifically, post-Brexit vote) have all been wrong. The British economy is actually doing decently on common indicators, well above the negative scenarios. This serves both to demonstrate that Brexit per se won't be a disaster, and that the economists making these predictions have a fundamentally wrong set of premises, which produce fatally flawed models inconsistent with empirical data.
As Larry Elliott, Guardian economics editor, wrote: “Brexit Armageddon was a terrifying vision — but it simply hasn’t happened.”
The neoliberal biases built into these models include the assertion that markets are self-regulating and capable of delivering optimal outcomes so long as they are unhindered by government intervention; that “free trade” is unambiguously positive; that governments are financially constrained; that supply-side factors are much more important than demand-side ones; and that individuals base their decision on “rational expectations” about economic variables, among others. Many of the key assumptions used to construct these exercises bear no relation to reality.
Even British manufacturing is doing well, due to "benefits of the lower pound and improved world trade conditions."
EU membership has had fewer economic benefits than purported. With EEC and EU accession, the growth in GDP per capita fell below the 2.75%/year trend of the 50s and 60s. EU membership did not improve EU-15 measures of GDP-per-labour-hour or per-capita income relative to the United States. The single market and the common currency did not increase the proportion intra-EU or intra-Eurozone exports (it decreased intra-Eurozone). UK exports to EU and Eurozone as share of total UK exports have been falling since the recession.
The much-vaunted establishment of the Single Market in 1992 didn’t change things — neither for the UK nor for the EU as a whole. Even when we limit ourselves to evaluating the success of the Single Market on the basis of mainstream economic parameters — productivity and GDP per capita — there is very little to suggest that it has lived up to its proponents’ promises or to official forecasts.
[Of course, this napkin-back analysis does nothing to indicate that EU/EEC membership was worse than the alternative of non-membership... The point about trade doesn't even address the context of changing trade patterns outside Europe, as though the only way the EU could be successful is if members did all their trade between each other. Maybe EU membership enables diversification of exports outside Europe. And this author doesn't explore the possibility that international trade is not the only measure of human success. Anyway...]
As the Cambridge researchers note, this suggests “a negligible advantage to the UK of being a member of the EU.” Moreover, it shows that Britain has been diversifying its exports for quite some time and is much less reliant on the EU today than it was twenty or thirty years ago. A further observation drawn from the IMF Directions of Trade database is that while global exports have grown fivefold since 1991 and advanced economies exports have grown by 3.91 times, EU and EMU exports have only grown by 3.7 and 3.4 times respectively.
These results are consistent with other studies that show that tariff liberalization in itself does not promote growth or even trade. In fact, the opposite is often true: as Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang has shown, all of today’s rich countries developed their economies through protectionist measures. This casts serious doubts over the widespread claim that leaving the Single Market would necessarily mean “lower productivity and lower living standards.” It also exposes as utterly “implausible,” in the words of the Cambridge researchers, the Treasury’s claim that Britain has experienced a 76 percent increase in trade due to EU membership, which could be reversed upon leaving the EU. The Cambridge economists conclude that average tariffs are already so low for non-EU nations seeking to trade within the EU that even in the case of a “hard Brexit” trade losses are likely to be limited and temporary.
[The supersized text is kind of true. Alexander Hamilton is probably one of the top-five most influential economists in history.]
Furthermore, it is often forgotten in the debate over Brexit that the Single Market is about much more than just trade liberalization. A crucial tenet of the Single Market was the deregulation of financial markets and the abolition of capital controls, not only among EU members but also between EU members and other countries. As we argue in our recent book, Reclaiming the State, this reflected the new consensus that set in, even among the Left, throughout the 1970s and 1980. This consensus held that economic and financial internationalization — what today we call “globalization” — had rendered the state increasingly powerless vis-à-vis “the forces of the market.” In this reading, countries therefore had little choice but to abandon national economic strategies and all the traditional instruments of intervention in the economy, and hope, at best, for transnational or supranational forms of economic governance.
This resulted in a gradual depoliticization of economic policy, which has been an essential element of the neoliberal project, aimed at insulating macroeconomic policies from popular contestation and removing any obstacles put in the way of capital flows.
The EU-as-neoliberal-institution.
In this sense, it is impossible to separate the Single Market from all the other negative aspects of the European Union. The EU is structurally neoliberal, undemocratic, and neocolonial in nature. It is politically dominated by its largest member and the policies it has driven have had disastrous social and economic effects.
The Left has a hard time abandoning its affection for the EU because it has internalized wrong ideas about trade and prosperity, the importance of public deficits and debts, the possibility of reform, Husar and that countries can't survive with pooling their sovereignty in supranational institutions.
Even a hard Brexit is likely to have minimal effects on British economy, and most of Britain's worsening problems are related not to Brexit but
to the extent that the UK continues to face serious economic problems — suppressed domestic demand, ballooning private debt, decaying infrastructure, and deindustrialization — these have nothing to do with Brexit, but are instead the result of the neoliberal economic policies pursued by successive British governments in recent decades, including the current Conservative government.
The UK needs more democracy.
While it may be true that in some areas previous right-wing British governments have been positively constrained by the EU in their push for all-out deregulation and marketization, the notion that the British people are incapable of defending their rights in the absence of some form of “external constraint” is patronizing and reactionary.
[...]
As John Weeks, professor emeritus at the University of London, writes: “The painful truth is that the vast majority of British households will be better off out of the European Union with a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn than in the European Union under the yoke of a Conservative government led by anyone.”
The author writes concordantly with the Mason article's argument:
This leads to an obvious conclusion: that for a Corbyn-led Labour government, not being a member of the European Union “solves more problems than it creates,” as Weeks notes. He is referring to the fact that many aspects of Corbyn’s manifesto — such as the renationalization of mail, rail, and energy firms and developmental support to specific companies — or other policies that a future Labour government may decide to implement, such as the adoption of capital controls, would be hard to implement under EU law and would almost certainly be challenged by the European Commission and European Court of Justice. After all, the EU was created with the precise intention of permanently outlawing such “radical” policies.
That is why Corbyn must resist the pressure from all quarters — first and foremost within his own party — to back a “soft Brexit.” He must instead find a way of weaving a radically progressive and emancipatory Brexit narrative. A once-in-a-lifetime window of opportunity has opened for the British left — and the European left more in general — to show that a radical break with neoliberalism, and with the institutions that support it, is possible. But it won’t stay open forever.
************
At this time there is no more use in trying to litigate these perspectives from the position of staying in the EU - Brexit is a fact of life - so I guess the more interesting tack is to figure out what exactly it means for the Labour party and its strategy going forward.
I see the Corbynite strand is to assert that the neoliberal order is not indispensable even in the short-term, rewriting the multilateral rules is necessary so that it doesn't become entirely a tool of Russia/China on one hand or big business on the other, the UK has the power and wherewithal to embark on an intense round of state capitalism paving the way for socialist transformation, and that proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Bold.
Pannonian
You've consistently been resentful of the current Labour party's risk-taking wrt government and Brexit; perhaps there is no better option left? He who dares, wins?
Hey, maybe my belief that only America can model socialism to the world is jingoist fantasy, and any reasonably-big country can do it.
Montmorency
05-10-2018, 00:26
Well, I'm skeptical about a lot of the economic points on the usefulness of the EU - how bad is the EU in the context of late-20th c. neoliberal trends compared to a scenario without the EU, each country racing to its bottom? - and the immediate costs of taking on the world order (some foolish people, like Goebbels-puke Julian Assange literally believe that you have to bring the US down and let Russia and China do whatever they want with the pieces in order to have room to maneuver)...
But I think that MIGHT makes 'the ability to do right', so even our current market system would be forced to respond to a state producing results with socialist policies.
Everything would ride on a Corbyn experiment not crashing and burning, when many would be working at its neutralization.
Pannonian
05-10-2018, 02:09
Pannonian
You've consistently been resentful of the current Labour party's risk-taking wrt government and Brexit; perhaps there is no better option left? He who dares, wins?
The Loyal Opposition is supposed to challenge the government on their promises to the electorate. The Labour party has done nothing of the sort. The Loyal Opposition is allowing the government to do whatever it likes and present it as the will of the people. What's the point of an Opposition, including a leader who draws an additional salary to the comfortable figure he already commands as an MP, if they do not oppose? The Lords has been more of a Loyal Opposition than the Labour party.
Montmorency
05-10-2018, 02:31
The Loyal Opposition is supposed to challenge the government on their promises to the electorate. The Labour party has done nothing of the sort. The Loyal Opposition is allowing the government to do whatever it likes and present it as the will of the people. What's the point of an Opposition, including a leader who draws an additional salary to the comfortable figure he already commands as an MP, if they do not oppose? The Lords has been more of a Loyal Opposition than the Labour party.
If that's the case, what next besides fretting about it? What is the Labour Party doing elsewhere in government (vis-a-vis Conservative policy)? What would you want them to do in the near-future that they aren't?
And to the extent that a Party offers its own coherent set of promises, would that count towards challenging the government/opposition's conduct?
Seamus Fermanagh
05-10-2018, 03:36
If that's the case, what next besides fretting about it? What is the Labour Party doing elsewhere in government (vis-a-vis Conservative policy)? What would you want them to do in the near-future that they aren't?
And to the extent that a Party offers its own coherent set of promises, would that count towards challenging the government/opposition's conduct?
I think that Pan' is referring to the traditions of English politics. While the 'loyal opposition' is supposed to have a shadow government ready to step forward with their policies if a vote of no confidence shifts the governing party from office (the political alternative function you allude to), traditionally that loyal opposition party has been much more 'pushy' during questions etc. so as to force the government to clarify policy and their reasons for taking certain actions so that voters might be better informed. The opposition is supposed to ask the tough questions that put the government on the spot and not go along to get along save where the national interest is so clear that more or less all parties agree on a particular policy.
Pannonian
05-10-2018, 05:03
I think that Pan' is referring to the traditions of English politics. While the 'loyal opposition' is supposed to have a shadow government ready to step forward with their policies if a vote of no confidence shifts the governing party from office (the political alternative function you allude to), traditionally that loyal opposition party has been much more 'pushy' during questions etc. so as to force the government to clarify policy and their reasons for taking certain actions so that voters might be better informed. The opposition is supposed to ask the tough questions that put the government on the spot and not go along to get along save where the national interest is so clear that more or less all parties agree on a particular policy.
Leave promised the Norway option, which has been ruled out. Leave promised to give the NHS 350 million per week, a promise that was backtracked on the morning of the referendum result. That's 2 promises that immediately come to mind, which have been clearly broken. Yet the Loyal Opposition does not press the government on this.
https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9389966.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/GettyImages-531350218.jpg
Why is he still in a job?
Furunculus
05-10-2018, 07:34
I think that Pan' is referring to the traditions of English politics. While the 'loyal opposition' is supposed to have a shadow government ready to step forward with their policies if a vote of no confidence shifts the governing party from office (the political alternative function you allude to), traditionally that loyal opposition party has been much more 'pushy' during questions etc. so as to force the government to clarify policy and their reasons for taking certain actions so that voters might be better informed. The opposition is supposed to ask the tough questions that put the government on the spot and not go along to get along save where the national interest is so clear that more or less all parties agree on a particular policy.
Yes, at least I would certainly agree:
It is not tory/labour domindation of the institutions that makes the british political system so effective.
Not too is it the winner takes all nature of an adversarial electoral system to the commons.
It isn't the great reserve of wisdom in the Lords and its dogged pursuit of the role of a revising chamber.
It isn't even the great flexibility of an uncodified constitution.
No, it is the 'process' of parliament that is a function of all of the above.
That jostling of ideas, in an environment of sharp legal elbows and fractious political tempers.
This process has a tendency to rub off the sharp corners of ideas put before parliament, such the the resultant product better fits the wider polity.
Her majesty's loyal opposition have not been performing their essential role in 'jostling' the executive.
They seem more interested in their internal transformation project, with a pious hope that their ideological project will roll out the back of the scrum of a Tory government.
I have enormous confidence in the 'process' of the parliament, and thus the effectiveness of the british political system, but the engine doesn't always run smooth.
rory_20_uk
05-10-2018, 09:54
Yes, at least I would certainly agree:
It is not tory/labour domindation of the institutions that makes the british political system so effective.
Not too is it the winner takes all nature of an adversarial electoral system to the commons.
It isn't the great reserve of wisdom in the Lords and its dogged pursuit of the role of a revising chamber.
It isn't even the great flexibility of an uncodified constitution.
No, it is the 'process' of parliament that is a function of all of the above.
That jostling of ideas, in an environment of sharp legal elbows and fractious political tempers.
This process has a tendency to rub off the sharp corners of ideas put before parliament, such the the resultant product better fits the wider polity.
Her majesty's loyal opposition have not been performing their essential role in 'jostling' the executive.
They seem more interested in their internal transformation project, with a pious hope that their ideological project will roll out the back of the scrum of a Tory government.
I have enormous confidence in the 'process' of the parliament, and thus the effectiveness of the british political system, but the engine doesn't always run smooth.
This "process" has led to the creation of an inefficient, zombie-like UK industry in the 1960s / 70s and the consequent hollowing out in the 1980s and 1990s. No decisions made on pension reform for decades - tackling final salaries for baby boomers was a problem that could be foreseen for the last 40 years or so. New Labour's massive PFI off the books debt; devolution but no review of the Barnett formula and so on and so on.
The UK might lurch along in spite of the many inefficiencies of the political system we have but again we either seem to have no long term strategy - either more of the same or diametrically opposite - caused by our dreadful first past the post system at all levels in England and with local representatives also being the national representative. It is almost designed to ensure politicians have long, stable careers more than react to what locals want... except with a massive shift when "the other lot" get complete power and begin working.
I agree that other parts of the system help in improving how this functions.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
05-10-2018, 15:48
I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.
I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.
Well, how would you define government efficiency?
Where I come from, efficiency means same output with lower input or higher output with same input.
Translated to government that would mean same road quality with lower taxes or same taxes but better road quality.
The only ones who could possibly be against that are the contractors who build the road and would rather build bad roads for lots of government money to maximize their own profits/money-making-efficiency...
Well, how would you define government efficiency?
Where I come from, efficiency means same output with lower input or higher output with same input.
Translated to government that would mean same road quality with lower taxes or same taxes but better road quality.
The only ones who could possibly be against that are the contractors who build the road and would rather build bad roads for lots of government money to maximize their own profits/money-making-efficiency...
Where tou came from destroyed everting twice, won't hold WW1 and WW2 against you bur wtrh the schaffende Muti I really can, once again Germany screw everything, say hi to the raped girls for me, I would have protected them it is my job after all, shady as ir may be they would have been fine
Montmorency
05-10-2018, 22:08
Husar
How do you contextualize those leftists' perspectives (in my post) on the EU within the reform/replacement process? There are a number of permutations.
I hate the inefficiencies of government....but sometimes I fear the idea of a truly efficient government even more. I always thought Herbert was onto something with BuSab.
I'm don't think I've seen it explicitly confirmed in my readings as of now, but my impression is that luxury socialism requires built-in inefficiencies to prevent the accumulation of inequality in power, wealth, and influence.
So for example, if you have rotating hierarchies, one month the position of Transport Secretary could be filled by an administrative genius, the next a disinterested bozo whose staff must constantly run damage control, most months something in between. I'm just making it up though, haven't seen it entailed.
Hard to see how you ever install the system if you start with a deliberately inefficient government, so someone will still have to think about who is sacrificed in the process...
252693451
Seamus Fermanagh
05-10-2018, 23:05
Where tou came from destroyed everting twice, won't hold WW1 and WW2 against you bur wtrh the schaffende Muti I really can, once again Germany screw everything, say hi to the raped girls for me, I would have protected them it is my job after all, shady as ir may be they would have been fine
Drunk? That comment is way out of line, Frags, and personally insulting to Husar. Say what you will about Germany's past evil-doings, but casting that on Husar is just wrong.
Drunk? That comment is way out of line, Frags, and personally insulting to Husar. Say what you will about Germany's past evil-doings, but casting that on Husar is just wrong.
Not directed at Husar. But Germany does as it pleases, the EU is nothing more then Germany, and France morally blackmailing them. A fourth reich with a bitch of a wife
edit, Something is moving in Italy. Don't know a lot about Italy and their politics but 'eurosceptic' parties have a majority
Furunculus
05-12-2018, 06:54
This "process" has led to the creation of an inefficient, zombie-like UK industry in the 1960s / 70s and the consequent hollowing out in the 1980s and 1990s. No decisions made on pension reform for decades - tackling final salaries for baby boomers was a problem that could be foreseen for the last 40 years or so. New Labour's massive PFI off the books debt; devolution but no review of the Barnett formula and so on and so on.
The UK might lurch along in spite of the many inefficiencies of the political system we have but again we either seem to have no long term strategy - either more of the same or diametrically opposite - caused by our dreadful first past the post system at all levels in England and with local representatives also being the national representative. It is almost designed to ensure politicians have long, stable careers more than react to what locals want... except with a massive shift when "the other lot" get complete power and begin working.
I agree that other parts of the system help in improving how this functions.
~:smoking:
i'm not at at sure what you say is true, unless your point is confined to a specific part of the system, and not the wider process i allude to.
we have - perhaps by accident - built constructive dissent into the system in a way that i think is missing in many consensusal political systems:
https://qz.com/1269977/a-berkeley-professor-explains-why-society-needs-more-troublemakers/
Demetrius
05-12-2018, 07:19
The fate of Europe will be chosen by walking persistently finished the course of basic interests. Agreement building requires unique consideration instead of over-ardently defined, disruptive objectives. To my psyche, essential issues are of normal money, free stream of individuals with delicate fringes, the topic of displaced people, outside rivalry and radial developments in part states.
Furunculus
05-12-2018, 07:22
Well off the mark. I meant it as derived from the Deleuzian/accelerationist sense, but we don't care about those labels so in the concrete sense of political controls being diffused into the hands of trans-national elites, for instance by virtue of their market clout and the overriding imperatives of their economic framework. C.f. what googling the term gets: "the severance of social, political, or cultural practices from their native places and populations."
Ah, I understand what you are talking about now. Thank you. No, I certainly wouldn't aim for that as an explicit goal in public policy making. But I also don't see that it entirely avoidable in a society that embraces globalisation as an opportunity. Nor too I recognise that it will by default be worse under one situation or another: in or out of the EU. The EU is an explicitly political project, and you could make a perfectly good argument that in being sucked into a world where:
1. Politics system is arranged on a more consensual basis
2. Public policy making is framed by a greater respect for the precautionary principle
3. Law-making reflects less a common law growth, preferring instead statute
4. Constitutional arrangements are framed more cautiously with safeguards and limits on parliamentary sovereignty
5. Social policy is assumed to be more collective, with a privelege of equality over liberty
6. Foriegn policy that sees its role only in the softer side of dispute resolution
That we have been deterritorialising the governance of britain from its roots for the last forty years, anyway.
This is exactly what I've been trying to refer to you over time, that leaving the EU ub favor of liberalization to all comers clearly - or if you don't agree with "clearly", then suggestively enough that you can't ignore the possibility - eliminates more popular control, or at least popularly-responsive control, than EU membership ever could in the medium-term.
I accept the possibility, as stated above. I do not consider it to be likely, or inevitable.
As I said, Corbyn appears to believe otherwise, that Brexit is an opportunity to show that the capitalist system can be defied. Summary in a followup post. Pre-emptively I'll state that I think the UK is too small and weak to accomplish this, that the concert of explicit and implicit controls of the world economy, institutions, and state actors results in the rapid and premature electoral expulsion of a radical Labour government. Alternatively, Labour would have to install a socialist-in-name dictatorship and emulate the quasi-self sufficiency of Cuba, an outcome that can hardly be called inspiring (inspiration matters in setting an example to other countries' socialist movements) and one that cannot shield the UK in the long-term context of persistent international capitalism (every factor in the world, from political to technological to ecological, inciting the implosion of the country).
In a world of islands the UK would not be allowed to pretend to be an island, in other words. Maybe EU membership overall provides some sort of buffer, when you need every edge you can get.
I read you post with interest, and I broadly agree with you reading. It is not something I would support - or consider desirable - but it seems a reasonable view of what 'they' might want.
What makes a Singapore from the spending-GDP ratio? It sounds like you're saying not a particular policy, but simply keeping overall spending below 40% of GDP will automatically reproduce some aspect of the Singapore model.
What are you referring to?
Yes, but not just spending ratios. I'd add regulatory 'ratio's if that were a thing. And when I refer to regulation I do not necessarily mean less, rather I mean regulation with less socialised aims. I use the examples of popular public distrust and regulatory banishment of GMO and fracking on the continent, and assume this derives from the more collective social culture which is happy to adopt a precautionary principle in public policy making 'for the public good'.
Anyway, what exact features you envision for a Singapore model, whether these are desirable for most people, and if they are compatible with other narrow aspects of your preferred state (e.g. military interventionism) are a separate topic and beside the point. I'm more interested in why you assent to one kind of politics and not another, and what contradictions are present.
We all assent to one kind of politics or not. We have preferences. We vote the way we vote for inumerable different motivations. I do not talk about the mechanisms of gov't, i.e. how the executive or the civil service should function, but raw politics itself. And the EU is an explicitly political beast itself, and has moved far beyond being merely the implementing arm of the will of the council. And on those terms I am able to reject it on exactly the same terms that I would choose to reject a green/labour/tory manifesto in a general election.
It strikes me as a kind of misuse of the term to, as I suppose you are doing, limit it to the continuous efforts of a central government. Why should private groups and discrete political events be excluded if they arrive at the same type of result? Which is not to say that there is a linear correlation between the aims of the engineers and the actual product, just the opposite. There are always unforeseen consequences. That's why I called it a gamble.
I think your objecting to what I expanded upon in my paragraph above, but I'm not totally sure of that. If so, please say so, and on that assumption; yes, it is a gamble. But I am very happy to have a political system that gives people the tools they need to succeed wildly or fail disasterously. I don't seek artifical restraint on the limits of power through fear. I am a negative liberty kinda individual (a classical liberal), not a positve liberty communitarian (social democrat).
I said I believe something like your Singapore - more broadly speaking, liberalized dissolution - is the default scenario for the UK, applicable in or out of the EU but with more rapid development outside. Some would call that "pessimism".
I agree, but I would call it optimism, because I hold the six points above to be undesirable.
Furunculus
05-12-2018, 07:58
The fate of Europe will be chosen by walking persistently finished the course of basic interests. Agreement building requires unique consideration instead of over-ardently defined, disruptive objectives. To my psyche, essential issues are of normal money, free stream of individuals with delicate fringes, the topic of displaced people, outside rivalry and radial developments in part states.
i'm not sure i understood much of that, my fault no doubt.
may I ask you to expand on that please? :)
edyzmedieval
05-15-2018, 22:17
On the topic that we've been discussing, two rather insightful articles - one about the future, and one about the past. The past one is quite spectacular in fact.
Weimar Lessons - https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/weimar-republic-lessons-for-today-by-harold-james-2018-05?a_la=english&a_d=5ae984b778b6c7394c5bd0ae&a_m=&a_a=click&a_s=&a_p=%2Fvideos%2Fps-explain-this-big-tobacco-goes-south&a_li=weimar-republic-lessons-for-today-by-harold-james-2018-05&a_pa=featured&a_ps=
FA - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2018-05-14/how-choice-can-save-europe
Gilrandir
05-16-2018, 04:11
Scottish parliament voted against Brexit. And?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/scottish-parliament-rejects-brexit-bill-in-challenge-to-may
HopAlongBunny
05-16-2018, 09:50
I am curious.
How will the EU juggle their treaty commitments to Iran and the (possible) re-imposition of sanctions by the US?
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-federica-mogherini-jean-yves-le-drian-heiko-maas-boris-johnson-javad-zarif-iran-europe-stares-down-donald-trump-over-iran/
If the US does not exhibit some flexibility, this could get very ugly very quickly.
I don't see this situation allowing anyone to look good
rory_20_uk
05-16-2018, 10:15
I am curious.
How will the EU juggle their treaty commitments to Iran and the (possible) re-imposition of sanctions by the US?
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-federica-mogherini-jean-yves-le-drian-heiko-maas-boris-johnson-javad-zarif-iran-europe-stares-down-donald-trump-over-iran/
If the US does not exhibit some flexibility, this could get very ugly very quickly.
I don't see this situation allowing anyone to look good
Indeed. Many countries in the EU are less and less happy with following the USA's lead when they have all been ignored and many countries have a lot to loose.
I really, really hope some calmer minds come up with some fudge that finds a way of allowing the Toddler in Chief to look Strong and have some more lines to shout at his rally whilst allowing Iran to have a reason to continue to follow an arrangement that the EU / China / Russia agreed to.
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
05-21-2018, 04:57
I really, really hope some calmer minds come up with some fudge that finds a way of allowing the Toddler in Chief to look Strong
Absolutely not. Giving him any wins only increases the chances of having him for an additional 4 years.
rory_20_uk
05-21-2018, 09:35
Either a further destabilised Middle East or Trump with a vague "win". I'd opt for the latter. This as a Trump win is both marginal in general and marginal to what his "base" (and rarely was there a better term).
~:smoking:
ConjurerDragon
05-21-2018, 12:38
Not directed at Husar. But Germany does as it pleases, the EU is nothing more then Germany,
It would be great if that would be true. Sadly soon with the UK gone the votes of the southern states who prefer a soft currency instead of a hard €, and who wish for Eurobonds that make their debts cost less interest for the cost of using Germanys credibility and raising the interest Germany would have to pay will outnumber the realists in the union.
and France morally blackmailing them. A fourth reich with a bitch of a wife
If anything it would be the 5th Reich. I mean even the french are at their 5th republic and we can’t have less than that, can we?
And moral blackmailing is a sport of all whiners in the world nowadays and not the sole domain of France.
edit, Something is moving in Italy. Don't know a lot about Italy and their politics but 'eurosceptic' parties have a majority
Eurosceptic and eurosceptic can be a lot of different viewpoints.
I for example love the EU for being able to travel freely to say the Netherlands or Italy without having the need of a visa or the need to exchange D-Mark into Lira, Gulden/HFL and Schilling. I do remember how that was when my grandparents and I were on holidays in South Tyrol and you needed to juggle 3 currencies. Not that everyone would not accept the other currencies, but at inflated exchange rates that made paying even more expensive than the usual bank fees for changing money. And not having to march into any of our neighbours in a tank for the last 73 years or being invaded by someone is something really unique for most countries in european history.
But on the other hand the EU has no democratic government, a parliament that has no say in the most important matters and a bureacrazy that is even worse than any national one.
It would be great if that would be true. Sadly soon with the UK gone the votes of the southern states who prefer a soft currency instead of a hard €, and who wish for Eurobonds that make their debts cost less interest for the cost of using Germanys credibility and raising the interest Germany would have to pay will outnumber the realists in the union.
I'm not sure I would call the current German government "realists"... :laugh4:
ConjurerDragon
05-21-2018, 14:51
I'm not sure I would call the current German government "realists"... :laugh4:
Regarding stability of the currency.
HopAlongBunny
05-22-2018, 02:05
Well this is getting real very quickly.
The US leads with 12 demands it can safely assume Iran will reject.
The last deal took what, 10-ish years to put together? It's quite clear the US is not negotiating.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/iran-hits-nuclear-deal-demands-180521173257818.html
So if Iran won't deal, and neither will the US...war? unlikely even Trump is that crazy; full sanctions, which the EU will comply with even if they don't explicitly support them.
If Putin didn't arrange this mess then he must be the luckiest world leader alive :rolleyes:
rory_20_uk
05-22-2018, 09:45
Then getting back on a plane and telling North Korea that they should do a deal and they USA will totally promise to keep it, like, forever.
I would hope the E.U. et al find ways to circumvent the sanctions if Iran abide by the agreement. The rest of the world can be allies or powers with aligning interests... not vassals.
~:smoking:
The EU who ruins countries economically and Iran who's regime hangs people just because of what they are seem to really like eachother and America a bit less
Gilrandir
05-22-2018, 12:34
Then getting back on a plane and telling North Korea that they should do a deal and they USA will totally promise to keep it, like, forever.
Like with Budapest memorandum and Lybia?
rory_20_uk
05-22-2018, 13:37
Exactly - there is no incentive whatsoever for North Korea to comply unless the two options are to definitely die in an invasion now and probably die in one in the next decade. The former of course accepts the deaths of a million or more South Koreans from biologic, chemical and conventional attacks, perhaps double that North Koreans in and after the war, best case scenario a massively pissed off China - worst case a direct war - and a handful of nukes fired that would, worst case, kill millions more (best case miss / are destroyed on the ground or in air).
Assuming that even Donald's bunch view this as a Bad Option - perhaps the rest of the world loudly saying it is and most countries refusing to provide any help for the logistical build up - there might be some option regarding non-proliferation for aid but apart from that little else.
~:smoking:
And the Paris climate agreement? And NATO? And TPP? And NAFTA? And that China/Taiwan thing where they would not call the PM/President of Taiwan? And the one where they wouldn't acknowledge Jerusalem to keep the peace? And the one where Trump would not play as much golf as Obama...wait, that was internal, but anyway... Trump is really the one to show the world how likely the USA are to keep all their agreements. :laugh4:
Furunculus
05-22-2018, 21:14
And the Paris climate agreement? And NATO? And TPP? And NAFTA? And that China/Taiwan thing where they would not call the PM/President of Taiwan? And the one where they wouldn't acknowledge Jerusalem to keep the peace? And the one where Trump would not play as much golf as Obama...wait, that was internal, but anyway... Trump is really the one to show the world how likely the USA are to keep all their agreements. :laugh4:
NATO?
NATO?
He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.
ConjurerDragon
05-23-2018, 17:47
He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.
Well, to be honest nearly all US presidents have brought up the clause that all NATO members have to expend 2% of their budget for the military. That is neither new, nor something that Trump made up. It even makes sense because if we look at the mess that the Bundeswehr is then even the old Spiegel magazine with it’s "bedingt abwehrbereit" articles from decades ago had no idea how low the standards and equipment of the german army could sink.
And "pacta sunt servanda" works both ways - by breaking the contract through not expending the promised amount of funds on military most european states have sacrificed their own ability to defend themselves AND their ability to come to the aid of their neighbours.
Well, to be honest nearly all US presidents have brought up the clause that all NATO members have to expend 2% of their budget for the military. That is neither new, nor something that Trump made up. It even makes sense because if we look at the mess that the Bundeswehr is then even the old Spiegel magazine with it’s "bedingt abwehrbereit" articles from decades ago had no idea how low the standards and equipment of the german army could sink.
And "pacta sunt servanda" works both ways - by breaking the contract through not expending the promised amount of funds on military most european states have sacrificed their own ability to defend themselves AND their ability to come to the aid of their neighbours.
Way to miss my point. How many of the others threatened to leave countries alone if they didn't pay up?
Trump and you also appear to miss the part where the budget is far from the biggest problem of the Bundeswehr.
https://www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/ruestungsvorhaben-mehr-geld-wird-die-bundeswehr-probleme-nicht-loesen/21204968.html
Germany's plans to increase the military expenditures also date back to Obama, here an article from shortly before the 2016 election:
http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-germany-to-heavily-increase-bundeswehr-budget/a-36054268
To reduce the problem to some one-dimensional "spend more money" is really silly when the army doesn't even use its entire budget because the industry just can't deliver and when the requirements for the gear are completely broken regarding its missions. Take the transport helicopters that can only land on very flat ground due to the low ground clearance or the Tiger that doesn't have a swivel gun and can barely hit the taliban with gun pods on the wings because we ordered a tank buster and wanted to save money on the gun.
Of course we could try to buy so many Tigers that they can fire so many gunpods that the bullet storm become inescapable, that would be one way to fix the issue...
And then maybe they can use the missiles to create a nice, flat glass parking lot for the transports to land on. :rolleyes:
And besides, nobody forces the US to spend 4% of its GDP on defense, that is entirely their own choice to maintain force projection capabilities. If they can't defend us on a lower budget, maybe that would incentivize us to arm up by ourselves, but they want us to arm up to support their foreign adventures with more of our bullet sponges to make the adventures more palatable in the US.
We might just as well agree to a lower goal for all nations anyway.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/defense-industrialist/is-nato-s-2-of-gdp-a-relevant-target
According to that the British meet the 2% goal and I still heard lots of complaints about how they're ruining their navy.
And what exactly do we all need these large armies for anyway?
He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.
Well I can ubderstand the sentiment that we are freeriiding. We can cut it feom develiopment-bddget as it us vasucakt the sane thing
Well I can ubderstand the sentiment that we are freeriiding. We can cut it feom develiopment-bddget as it us vasucakt the sane thing
Freeriding what? Whom did the US actually defend us from since NATO was established?
And who asked the US to spend 4% of GDP? Why don't they just spend 2% and why did Trump increase the military budget if he thinks he's spending too much money on it? And why was the 2% goal only loosely set in the 90s?
On that note, why does the US demand us to see THAT goal as binding, but would never sign a climate contract with binding goals?
How about we accept that binding goal if the US accepts a binding goal that we like, such as a certain CO2 reduction (that we would also agree to of course)?
I mean, if we just accept some US wish and get none of our wishes granted, surely that would be a bad deal for us...Germany First!
According to that the British meet the 2% goal and I still heard lots of complaints about how they're ruining their navy.
And what exactly do we all need these large armies for anyway?
People like myself that complain do so because we anglophiles tend to see the hollowing out of the Royal Navy as a sad reflection of the UKs diminishing role in the world. For the purely NATO standpoint, the UK and France have long been the only NATO allies with navies capable of any force projection or long term sustainment at sea, having the UK give up that capability or let it erode means that for any NATO naval operation (like off the Somali coast) will take more US logistical support.
Though it sounds stupid, you need armies to keep a peace or to back up your positions. They don't need to be large, but they should at least be functional. The swiss haven't had to use their army in a long time but it's existence and it's being formidable enough kept it out of WWI and WWII. The Germans copying the the US model of logistics (based off the Walmart model) was supposed to save money which it does at the cost of equipment readiness. Not being allowed to stockpile parts means that maintenance shops have to wait for the ordering system to work back to depots and forward again meaning more downtime for even simple repairs.
In the longer term viewpoint, if Russia ever succeeds in the dissolution of NATO and the watering down of any collective EU defense then it's quite likely that they'd use outright force again to enforce political/economic disputes with their neighbors. As any student of history knows, building up an army does not happen quickly and any credible European military response to Russian aggression can't wait for the threat to become so real that public support demands it.
If the above seems unrealistic just think back how different to world was 30 years ago or 20 years ago. Things have gotten more peaceful for Europe but that is not irreversible. Remember, the strong tend to despise 'weakness' not respect it. Thankfully France has 'the bomb' so there is some independent deterrent (assuming the US abandons Europe again) within the EU following the departure of the UK.
Freeriding what? Whom did the US actually defend us from since NATO was established?
And who asked the US to spend 4% of GDP? Why don't they just spend 2% and why did Trump increase the military budget if he thinks he's spending too much money on it? And why was the 2% goal only loosely set in the 90s?
On that note, why does the US demand us to see THAT goal as binding, but would never sign a climate contract with binding goals?
How about we accept that binding goal if the US accepts a binding goal that we like, such as a certain CO2 reduction (that we would also agree to of course)?
I mean, if we just accept some US wish and get none of our wishes granted, surely that would be a bad deal for us...Germany First!
We should be able to defend ourself. For a country like the Netherlans meeting the NATO-standard on spending doesn't make much sense, it's a small country with a huge economy, but in general NATO-partners could, and should, do better
Pannonian
05-23-2018, 22:38
People like myself that complain do so because we anglophiles tend to see the hollowing out of the Royal Navy as a sad reflection of the UKs diminishing role in the world. For the purely NATO standpoint, the UK and France have long been the only NATO allies with navies capable of any force projection or long term sustainment at sea, having the UK give up that capability or let it erode means that for any NATO naval operation (like off the Somali coast) will take more US logistical support.
Though it sounds stupid, you need armies to keep a peace or to back up your positions. They don't need to be large, but they should at least be functional. The swiss haven't had to use their army in a long time but it's existence and it's being formidable enough kept it out of WWI and WWII. The Germans copying the the US model of logistics (based off the Walmart model) was supposed to save money which it does at the cost of equipment readiness. Not being allowed to stockpile parts means that maintenance shops have to wait for the ordering system to work back to depots and forward again meaning more downtime for even simple repairs.
In the longer term viewpoint, if Russia ever succeeds in the dissolution of NATO and the watering down of any collective EU defense then it's quite likely that they'd use outright force again to enforce political/economic disputes with their neighbors. As any student of history knows, building up an army does not happen quickly and any credible European military response to Russian aggression can't wait for the threat to become so real that public support demands it.
If the above seems unrealistic just think back how different to world was 30 years ago or 20 years ago. Things have gotten more peaceful for Europe but that is not irreversible. Remember, the strong tend to despise 'weakness' not respect it. Thankfully France has 'the bomb' so there is some independent deterrent (assuming the US abandons Europe again) within the EU following the departure of the UK.
With the advent of Brexit, the UK's 2% may support a rather smaller military than previously. Efficiencies could have been sought with the UK and France specialising in different areas and forming a larger coherent joint force, but of course the UK has been busy burning bridges since June 2016.
Furunculus
05-24-2018, 13:38
He threatened to just disregard it if the nations in trouble don't meet his standards in terms of military expenditure and potentially other things. So far he hasn't done anything, but he certainly didn't invoke trust by bringing up the possibility that he would ignore the invasion of a member state if he felt it wasn't "worthy" in his eyes.
He did no more to damage nato than euro nations failing to do their bit for collective defense.
rory_20_uk
05-24-2018, 13:55
With the advent of Brexit, the UK's 2% may support a rather smaller military than previously. Efficiencies could have been sought with the UK and France specialising in different areas and forming a larger coherent joint force, but of course the UK has been busy burning bridges since June 2016.
This could work in that the UK could have a force that is useful for what an island nation needs - a Navy and perhaps some Marines and all but disband the army completely and if France or others want to have a large army then we could work together. Perhaps then we might even manage to have planes for the lovely aircraft carriers and enough ships to form the accompanying fleet to use them for anything that is remotely dangerous.
And the greatest bonus is then the almost complete inability to get sucked into protracted military engagements in far flung places beyond some shoreline battery fire and perhaps establishing a beachhead.
~:smoking:
Montmorency
05-24-2018, 14:02
More tooth, less tail: Getting beyond NATO’s 2 percent rule (https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/more-tooth-less-tail-getting-beyond-natos-2-percent-rule)
The question of obsolescence seems to have been settled. But the debate on burden-sharing continues unabated. In his roundabout way, President Trump has done a notable job of raising the issue of the adequacy of European NATO’s defense spending. Criticism has focused almost entirely on the level of investment by member countries—whether they are meeting the 2 percent commitment—with far less attention paid to their actual ability to defend themselves and their allies. All things considered, the 2 percent rule is a poor way to measure burden-sharing. It came about in part as a convenience, as this was the level of NATO Europe’s spending in 2002, when the target was first agreed upon. It is one of the few things that NATO reports externally. It is useful, if a little crude, but it has a few methodological flaws and takes us only so far. Even the wider concept of burden-sharing, the desire for members to “pay their fair share,” is inherently flawed, since it focuses on inputs rather than outputs.
To keep metrics simple, the public focus should be on inputs (spending) and outputs (capabilities measured in deployable, ready, sustainable forces). Productivity metrics—the efficiency and effectiveness with which inputs are converted to outputs—should be provided for the benefit of member nations. Burden-sharing can then appropriately focus not simply on what countries spend, but on the forces they provide to ensure the security of Europe and the North Atlantic, as the treaty originally intended.
1. [MY OPINION] The burden on European countries of holding membership in NATO, allowing American basing, and the indispensability to NATO/America of the same, is not accounted for in allegations of "unequal burden-sharing".
Finally, some argue that the United States’ status as a global power means that its defense spending is not directly comparable to that of other NATO members. Of nearly 200,000 US forces deployed overseas, just over 99,000 of them are deployed in Europe, suggesting that roughly half of US deployed forces (and by extension roughly half its spending) are dedicated to non-European missions.15 By that measure, the US contribution to NATO would not seem nearly so disproportionate.
2.
The 2 percent figure dates to the 2002 Prague summit, when it was established as a non-binding target; it was reiterated in Riga in 2006. At the NATO 2014 summit in Wales, all states not meeting the target pledged to do so within the next decade (and states above 2 percent agreed to maintain that level). In the three years since the Wales summit, spending has started to move in the right direction, increasing by 1.8 percent in 2015, 3.3 percent in 2016, and a projected 4.3 percent this year.
To get to 2 percent, spending will need to increase by another $107 billion annually ($28 billion in Germany, $17 billion in Italy, $15 billion in Spain, $12 billion in Canada, $5 billion in France, and smaller sums elsewhere).
NATO members have committed to spending 20 percent of their annual defense expenditure on equipment
3.
At the Riga summit in 2006, it introduced a target that NATO land forces be at least 40 percent deployable and 8 percent deployable on a sustained basis (raised to 50 percent and 10 percent in 2008).
The latest official figures from the EDA show that only 29 percent of EDA member forces are deployable, and less than 6 percent of them on a sustainable basis,19 with unofficial figures suggesting that fewer than 3 percent of European troops are deployable due to a lack of interoperability and equipment shortages.20
4.
There is no shared understanding of what makes up defense spending. In its definition of “military expenditure,” NATO includes defense ministry budgets, expenditure for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, and research and development costs. Significantly, it also includes pensions. For many states, military pensions represent a substantial proportion of their defense budget (in 2016, 33 percent of Belgium’s defense budget was spent on pensions, as was 24 percent of France’s and 17 percent of Germany’s). The trouble is that while pensions contribute to the 2 percent target, they do not contribute to a state’s fighting power.
5.
For all of those problems, the 2 percent metric retains its appeal. It is simple, straightforward, and (relatively) easy to measure. Jan Techau, director of Carnegie Europe, argues that the 2 percent target is “flawed but indispensable” as a measure of “who is and who is not politically committed to NATO’s core task: Europe’s security.”
“Spending at 2 percent says very little about a country’s actual military capabilities; its readiness, deployability, and sustainability levels; and the quality of the force that it can field. It also is mum about a country’s willingness to deploy forces and take risks once those forces are deployed. It does not assess whether a country spends its limited resources wisely.”22
6.
The 1949 Strategic Concept called for this level of rigor: “A successful defense of the North Atlantic Treaty nations through maximum efficiency of their armed forces, with the minimum necessary expenditures of manpower, money and materials, is the goal of defense planning.”
ATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has recently suggested that member states publish plans detailing three elements: cash, capabilities, and commitments.
I propose a framework to meet the needs that NATO and others have identified.
A. Spend enough. NATO must measure and report total defense spending. A "real" percentage threshold - no pensions, no military aid, no intelligence spending...
This prompted the UK, in 2015, to add some £2.2 billion to its reported NATO figure by adding civilian and military pensions, contributions to UN peacekeeping missions, and a large portion of the Ministry of Defence’s income from other countries’ defense ministries to its reported figure.27 Although these inclusions were seen as legitimate, it seems likely that they do not contribute to the UK’s fighting power and should be removed from the NATO definition for all nations.
B. Spend it on the right things. NATO should measure and report what the money is spent on. The right mix of spending on personnel, operational costs, equipment, and R&D.
“European defense spending has been consumed disproportionately by personnel and operational costs.”28 In fact, more than 50 percent of European spending goes to salaries and pensions. Roughly speaking, an optimal mix is no more than 40 percent on personnel and a quarter on major equipment. Yet NATO Europe forces spend only 15.2 percent of their budgets on equipment, versus a much healthier 25 percent in the United States (and 24.5 percent in France and 22.6 percent in the UK).29
The net result is that the US spends fully $127,000 on each soldier’s equipment, while NATO European members spend only one-fifth that amount, $25,200 per soldier
NATO should be measuring spending at a more granular level: military pay, civilian pay, major equipment acquisition, research and development, operations and maintenance, and infrastructure.
C. Spend it well. NATO should measure efficiency and effectiveness in each of these three categories: Personnel, Equipment, Operations & Maintenance.
Many forces waste precious resources, maintaining Cold War bureaucracies rather than prioritizing frontline forces. The people and infrastructure supporting the fighting force (the tail) has failed to shrink as fast as the fighting force itself (the tooth), resulting in an ever-deteriorating tooth-to-tail ratio (Exhibit 3). The force is at the same time too large, with too many non-deployable forces, and too small, with too few deployable fighting forces.
Compounding the problem of too few euros going to equipment, the purchasing power of European governments is dissipated by an inefficient industry structure. Alexander Mattelaer at the Institute for European Studies argues: “The present degree of fragmentation in the European defense markets and organizational structures virtually guarantees a poor return on investment.”30 McKinsey’s analysis shows 178 different weapon systems in service in Europe, versus 30 in the US.
Many forces have failed to spend enough to maintain what equipment they do have, and their overall maintenance productivity is low. In 2014, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen revealed major deficiencies in the operational capability of important German weapons systems. For example, only 42 of 109 Eurofighters, 38 of 89 Tornado fighters, and 4 of 22 Sea Lynx helicopters were ready for service, mostly due to a lack of spare parts.
Experience suggests that overall maintenance productivity is low.
D. Measure the outputs. NATO should measure capabilities and continue to measure the readiness, deployability, and sustainability of forces (and its will to use them).
During the Cold War, each NATO member had a commitment to a “self-defense plan” that specified a required force structure, a certain readiness level, and a deployability level for their forces. [...] Two critical and necessary steps to reform the notion of burden-sharing would be for NATO to craft an integrated defense plan, and for nations to commit to making force structure contributions to that plan, which they agree to fund.
[NATO] should take the next step and ask nations to publish the figures [on deployability of forces].
Finally, it would be useful to measure actual contributions to NATO missions as a measure of commitment to the alliance. Which nations are punching above their weight? Purely investment-related metrics have been a notoriously poor guide to predicting actual contributions to NATO missions. Denmark and a few other nations do not meet the 2 percent target, but when it comes to capabilities and contributions, they manage to outperform most other allies.
7. The US is not immune.
...more than 20 percent of the DoD’s nearly $600 billion annual budget was dedicated to six back-office business processes (facilities management, HR, finance, logistics, acquisitions, and health management).
...the DoD has significant opportunity to improve its own tooth-to-tail ratio, focusing on achieving productivity gains in the back-office core business processes and support functions, and reinvesting the savings to fund mission needs.
rory_20_uk
05-24-2018, 14:26
Any system that has KPIs invariably leads to everyone aiming for the KPI and ignoring the "bigger picture" of what the overarching purpose is for - what exactly in Europe is the military there to do, where is it going to achieve this and who is doing what? Point D really summarises this well - when there was a real concern that things might be required for use there was an attempt to ensure it was fit for purpose. For the last 25 years it has become more politicised with decisions based on non-military realities (aircraft carriers without planes, anyone?) Perhaps even going to the better countries such as Denmark and seeing if there are any things that can be learned from their approach - perhaps it might boil down to a less corrupt procurement procedure.
~:smoking:
Pannonian
05-24-2018, 17:17
Any system that has KPIs invariably leads to everyone aiming for the KPI and ignoring the "bigger picture" of what the overarching purpose is for - what exactly in Europe is the military there to do, where is it going to achieve this and who is doing what? Point D really summarises this well - when there was a real concern that things might be required for use there was an attempt to ensure it was fit for purpose. For the last 25 years it has become more politicised with decisions based on non-military realities (aircraft carriers without planes, anyone?) Perhaps even going to the better countries such as Denmark and seeing if there are any things that can be learned from their approach - perhaps it might boil down to a less corrupt procurement procedure.
~:smoking:
The carriers weren't designed without planes in mind. They were designed with the F-35 in mind. The RN, trusting the US's estimates, scheduled the retirement of its Harriers to be replaced in short order by F-35s. The F-35 isn't ready because they've been delayed, but the carrier is because they've been less delayed. The USMC refused to put aside their still working Harriers until the F-35 was a working concern. So they still have planes for their carriers.
The lesson in this should be to assume that solutions aren't going to be perfect until they're shown to be so. Stick with the status quo until the changed situation has proven itself.
The carriers weren't designed without planes in mind. They were designed with the F-35 in mind. The RN, trusting the US's estimates, scheduled the retirement of its Harriers to be replaced in short order by F-35s. The F-35 isn't ready because they've been delayed, but the carrier is because they've been less delayed. The USMC refused to put aside their still working Harriers until the F-35 was a working concern. So they still have planes for their carriers.
The lesson in this should be to assume that solutions aren't going to be perfect until they're shown to be so. Stick with the status quo until the changed situation has proven itself.
Well retiring any system based on a supposed future fielding date of new equipment is always problematic, the Space Shuttle is a good example of the American version. We've been hitching rides with the Russians for far too long and the political/beauracatic moving of the goal posts keeps delaying it's replacement just like with the F-35. I personally think the Royal Navy should have gone for catapult launched aircraft which would have allowed it to field interim aircraft (like the F/A18, Rafale, or Sea Gripen) until their desire replacement was ready or at the very least kept their Harrier fleet around (the Italians and Spanish still fly Harriers from their aircraft carriers as well as the USMC).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/17/delays-keep-pushing-back-nasa-shuttle-replacement-program/1039835001/
what exactly in Europe is the military there to do, where is it going to achieve this and who is doing what?
That's certainly the first topic that needs to be taken up and one of the reasons an EU military is so unlikely. The French would certainly want the EU military to also work on the peripheries of Europe (the Med and Africa) while the Germans understandably don't want to leave the continent short of peacekeeping and limited support for NATO operations to fly the flag.
If either the French or Germans were to try and reorganize themselves for a credible challenge to Russia it would require a large investment into top tier military hardware, something both governments are unlikely to fund. Especially as the military is still culturally something to be despised (WW2, Algiera and Indochina).
Right now the European militaries/governments seem more geared toward just barely keeping their defense industry afloat in the pursuit of foreign military sales (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, Thailand, Brazil etc...).
At the very least more coastal patrol boats etc.. to help Frontex in it's overstrech in Greece, Italy and Spain would help curb the immigration issues that are being used to stoke far-right nationalism.
I don't advocate that they pursue a re-militarization to be on par with say South Korea, the threat from Russia isn't that impending but it should certainly be more than it is now. The Polish, the Baltic States, and Romania are now the front line states in Europe and should be given the assurances they need from the major EU powers. The Baltic air policing and rotation of training forces is okay for getting greater inter-operability but not the same as having defense policy that actually supports functional militaries.
rory_20_uk
05-24-2018, 19:20
The carriers weren't designed without planes in mind. They were designed with the F-35 in mind. The RN, trusting the US's estimates, scheduled the retirement of its Harriers to be replaced in short order by F-35s. The F-35 isn't ready because they've been delayed, but the carrier is because they've been less delayed. The USMC refused to put aside their still working Harriers until the F-35 was a working concern. So they still have planes for their carriers.
The lesson in this should be to assume that solutions aren't going to be perfect until they're shown to be so. Stick with the status quo until the changed situation has proven itself.
I am aware they were designed to have planes. In fact during the building of the aircraft carriers they changed the planes they were to use twice I believe.
No solution is ever perfect - and no created product ever is so if one is awaiting perfection one will never have anything, and sticking to the status quo would have soldiers in red uniforms and bearskin hats.
If this is stating the UK needs to admit it is a Tier 2 country and refocus most spending on off the shelf solutions and not cutting edge "solutions" I would agree; that still does not address what exactly the carriers can be used for without sufficient ships to form proper carrier groups.
~:smoking:
He did no more to damage nato than euro nations failing to do their bit for collective defense.
Can you name these failures in defense? Did anyone get overrun and I missed it?
Can you name these failures in defense? Did anyone get overrun and I missed it?
Each time the Russians, Turks, or any other country violate EU or NATO airspace or maritime boundaries it could be considered a failure. It's not an overrun in a hot war but it is showing the weaknesses of the nations in questions. That doesn't mean that EU countries are about to be bombed in anyway but generally a nation that can't police its borders and stop foreign military incursions opens itself up to that possibility. That's why the airspace defense zones and island building in the South China Sea are such a big deal.
EU warns Turkey after it violates Greek airspace 141 times in one day
https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/eu-warns-turkey-after-it-violates-greek-airspace-141-times-in-one-day/
Sweden confirms submarine violation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/sweden-confirms-submarine-violation
Cyprus protests to the UN Turkish violations of air and maritime space
https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/02/24/cyprus-protests-un-turkish-violations-air-maritime-space/
Each time the Russians, Turks, or any other country violate EU or NATO airspace or maritime boundaries it could be considered a failure. It's not an overrun in a hot war but it is showing the weaknesses of the nations in questions. That doesn't mean that EU countries are about to be bombed in anyway but generally a nation that can't police its borders and stop foreign military incursions opens itself up to that possibility. That's why the airspace defense zones and island building in the South China Sea are such a big deal.
EU warns Turkey after it violates Greek airspace 141 times in one day
https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/eu-warns-turkey-after-it-violates-greek-airspace-141-times-in-one-day/
Sweden confirms submarine violation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/sweden-confirms-submarine-violation
Cyprus protests to the UN Turkish violations of air and maritime space
https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/02/24/cyprus-protests-un-turkish-violations-air-maritime-space/
Isn't Turkey a NATO member just like Greece? We sell Turkey weapons, so if they're considered a threat to us, that's really kinda weird.
And regarding the defense failure definition, that's really quite funny:
Russian bombers penetrated U.S. airspace at least 16 times in past 10 days (from 2014)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/7/russian-bombers-penetrated-us-airspace-least-16-ti/
4% of GDP and still a complete failure?! :creep:
Turkey is the ally we need but don't really want and their (government's) attitude toward NATO is similar. They are a potential future threat, if they continue down the political path they have been on they will likely be kicked out of or leave NATO and either join the Russian sphere or attempt to lead a new 'non-aligned' islamist movement in the middle east (Neo-Ottoman). As it is right now we can only hope that Erdogan's changes can be reversed in the future.
As you said, it is really weird but looking at the relations they have with Germany and the EU especially I'm sure you agree that weird is probably an understatement too.
4% of GDP and still a complete failure?!
Yup, a complete failure of course..... a lot of airspace to cover for the US with a shrinking Air Force (though far more expensive and less cost effective). That 4% is a target, a goal, not a magic number that equals military might or invulnerability.
Furunculus
05-28-2018, 14:49
Can you name these failures in defense? Did anyone get overrun and I missed it?
let me rephrase that so it is more easily understood:
whatever damage was done to public acceptance of collective defence by NATO (as a result of trumps comment re Art5), was minor in comparison to the damage done to public confidence that collective defence actually meant something (when most of nato europe has atrophied its military capability so badly).
to the point where you might question whether many nations within nato-euope would add any sustantial military capability to collective defence.
i'd go further, and argue that trump's reaction was a political response to this atrophy of nato-europe capability; "you obviously don't take it seriously, so why should we?"
A much better view of where we stand:
http://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/the-great-european-defence-crisis.html
Notwithstanding the value of the report Monty listed above, in filling in the detail of what I link here.
Furunculus
05-28-2018, 14:56
On a different note:
Buckle up chaps, we might be in for a fun ride! :D roflmao - This is what happens when you try to treat politics as a safe space. It isn't, you either trust voters or you don't!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44275010
I understand El-Presidente had no problem with the platform, merely the person proposed for the job. Lol:
No mention of leaving the Euro, but plan to cut taxes and increase spending, blowing deficit out to 7.5% and add to the 125%/gdp debt pile. Draw your own conclusion!
What he's really saying: we had confidence we could make you think again from enacting the implications of your program, unless this chap is at the helm, in which case we're not sure of our ability to manipulate the public-policy platform of the incoming gov't. So you can't have him, we want a puppet instead.
Montmorency
05-28-2018, 20:00
let me rephrase that so it is more easily understood:
whatever damage was done to public acceptance of collective defence by NATO (as a result of trumps comment re Art5), was minor in comparison to the damage done to public confidence that collective defence actually meant something (when most of nato europe has atrophied its military capability so badly).
to the point where you might question whether many nations within nato-euope would add any sustantial military capability to collective defence.
i'd go further, and argue that trump's reaction was a political response to this atrophy of nato-europe capability; "you obviously don't take it seriously, so why should we?"
A much better view of where we stand:
http://lindleyfrench.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/the-great-european-defence-crisis.html
Notwithstanding the value of the report Monty listed above, in filling in the detail of what I link here.
Declaring things nonsense pat? But I take issue with "Peace through legitimate strength", channeled through vigorous armed forces.
Russia and China are most successful through asymmetric warfare and aggressive diplomacy and mercantilism. No amount of defense spending alone is going to deter these actions, because Russia and China (mostly China) know we're not going to risk pre-emptive war over their incremental strategies. You need soft power to contain them; else they'll recruit enough auxiliaries to contain us.
There's a discussion for the precise sorts of hard power we most need to support the soft power, but revamping and accumulating conventional force is actually irrelevant in the long-term unless we can collectively sort out our vision for the world.
Let me emphasize: you're never going to have the opportunity to wield shiny toys, because the adversary won't let you choose those those terms of contest.
Russia and China are most successful through asymmetric warfare and aggressive diplomacy and mercantilism. No amount of defense spending alone is going to deter these actions, because Russia and China (mostly China) know we're not going to risk pre-emptive war over their incremental strategies. You need soft power to contain them; else they'll recruit enough auxiliaries to contain us.
Their methods of warfare can be countered but don't think for a second that they don't have substantial conventional capabilities as well. The collective lesson of Desert Storm to Russia and China were the marked advantage that quality currently has over quantity and hence their upgrades from massive armor/mechanized formations of medium quality (Russia) and massive infantry formations (PRC) to much more independent and qualitative formations.
The asymmetric warfare aspect however isn't new, it's essentially the same "Revolutionary Warfare" that the French encountered in Indochina and Algeria, that the US fought in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the British in Malaya, Northern Ireland, and Iraq.
To counter what the Russians have done in Ukraine and what the Chinese are currently doing in the South China Sea would require the US to engage more in propping up regional militias like Vietnam is currently doing.
Vietnam's Fishing ‘Militia’ to Defend Maritime Claims Against China
https://www.voanews.com/a/vietnam-fosters-fishing-militia-to-defend-maritime-claims-against-china/4335312.html
To counter the constant cyber attacks should take a concerted and centralized US/NATO response to standardize and upgrade systems, as well as find a suitable countermeasure and response to ensure that such attacks can't go unanswered anymore.
The biggest thing the US and NATO need to figure out is 'messaging' or "propaganda" in selling what we're doing. We have trouble even convincing our own populations to support even standard peace time operations such as the Baltic Air Patrols and the relevancy of NATO, how can we possibly convince our allies or local civilians in any conflict. While it's good to know that the US hasn't been good at propaganda since WW2 it certainly doesn't help us be "The Good Guys" that we want to be when the chief competitors are the ones succeeding at putting their messages and themes out.
There's a discussion for the precise sorts of hard power we most need to support the soft power, but revamping and accumulating conventional force is actually irrelevant in the long-term unless we can collectively sort out our vision for the world.
If nothing else it's a deterrent, Britain hasn't had to have another Falklands War since Argentina has seen that those islands will be contested. France's remaining colonial possessions and ties with it's close African allies have been maintained by a credible and timely use of force.
In Côte d'Ivoire, a Model of Successful Intervention
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/06/in-c-te-divoire-a-model-of-successful-intervention/240164/
Operation Serval Another Beau Geste of France in Sub-Saharan Africa?
http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20141231_art014.pdf
The above cases are of course not at all directed toward a peer competitor such as Russia or China but given their gradual escalation in getting their way on the world stage over the last 15 years I personally believe it's building toward a short sharp conflict over something like Taiwan, North Korea, or the Ukraine in which they will try to give us a bloody nose and then open talks. Given the current apathy/dislike in the US and Western Europe toward Russia, the PRC, and most importantly the roles of the US and NATO in the world it'd be easy to see the PRC or Russians make such a calculated gamble that would be short of an all out war but at the same time demonstrate that the US is no longer a Superpower capable of contesting a Regional Power and thereby undermine any remaining confidence in our resolve to support friends and allies (think Suez in 1956 or South Vietnam in 1975).
With cold war tensions gone and mutual annihilation off the table (in the public's mind) the threat of a limited war with a Regional Power is actually more likely than before.
Let me emphasize: you're never going to have the opportunity to wield shiny toys, because the adversary won't let you choose those those terms of contest.
The adversaries have those same 'shiny toys' and if they gain a qualitative edge of significance they will likely demonstrate it. Until then they'll use Revolutionary Warfare with "polite people" in crimea and patriotic fishermen in the South China Sea and off the Senkaku Islands to ensure that if/when we need to defend ourselves it will initially be portrayed as us attacking civilians without cause.
Furunculus
05-28-2018, 23:11
Declaring things nonsense pat?
i don't understand? :)
Montmorency
05-29-2018, 02:50
The above cases are of course not at all directed toward a peer competitor such as Russia or China but given their gradual escalation in getting their way on the world stage over the last 15 years I personally believe it's building toward a short sharp conflict over something like Taiwan, North Korea, or the Ukraine in which they will try to give us a bloody nose and then open talks. Given the current apathy/dislike in the US and Western Europe toward Russia, the PRC, and most importantly the roles of the US and NATO in the world it'd be easy to see the PRC or Russians make such a calculated gamble that would be short of an all out war but at the same time demonstrate that the US is no longer a Superpower capable of contesting a Regional Power and thereby undermine any remaining confidence in our resolve to support friends and allies (think Suez in 1956 or South Vietnam in 1975).
With cold war tensions gone and mutual annihilation off the table (in the public's mind) the threat of a limited war with a Regional Power is actually more likely than before.
I agree well with this.
The adversaries have those same 'shiny toys' and if they gain a qualitative edge of significance they will likely demonstrate it. Until then they'll use Revolutionary Warfare with "polite people" in crimea and patriotic fishermen in the South China Sea and off the Senkaku Islands to ensure that if/when we need to defend ourselves it will initially be portrayed as us attacking civilians without cause.
Whatever the potential capabilities of Russian or Chinese conventional force in the future, their use will remain a high-risk, high-cost proposition that detracts from their other vectors (diplomacy, economics, asymmetric war). If they can get their way in a situation by other means - which they almost certainly can - then they will shun direct confrontation. The one countervailing motivation could be that the buildup of goodies gives certain hawks a hard-on for blowing their load (Buck Turgidson syndrome), and they become a dominant faction over more patient and realistic types.
i don't understand? :)
He claims that pooled efforts with limited budget synergy is nonsense, and opposing forward deployment of EU member forces to bypass mobility challenges because it may increase vulnerability is nonsense.
Whatever the potential capabilities of Russian or Chinese conventional force in the future, their use will remain a high-risk, high-cost proposition that detracts from their other vectors (diplomacy, economics, asymmetric war). If they can get their way in a situation by other means - which they almost certainly can - then they will shun direct confrontation. The one countervailing motivation could be that the buildup of goodies gives certain hawks a hard-on for blowing their load (Buck Turgidson syndrome), and they become a dominant faction over more patient and realistic types.
The countervailing motivation is the one that I'm worried about. Both Russia and the PRC play the victim card a lot for domestic consumption and one day those people that really want revenge for the past will be in a position to make those decisions. That desire for revenge against "The West" will probably force a war for domestic politics despite cooler heads advising otherwise. That combined with their common view that the West is weak and degenerate and would fold easily at the first significant blood letting could blunder them into a war. Sorta like Saddam didn't think Bush would invade without the backing of the UN Security Council causing him to try and bluff or Hitler thinking that France and Britain wouldn't go to war over Danzig. Jingoism, revanchism, and nationalism make for good domestic propaganda until that forces politicians to go to war for fear of looking weak.
To the main point of the thread however in relation to the EU. What type of EU military or European national militaries would you think appropriate for the return of Russia and hard power?
Interesting read on one way, though I don't think Germany is really fit to lead an EU military for obvious WWII memories related reasons (for reasons of political will):
Germany Is Quietly Building a European Army Under Its Command
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/
Every few years, the idea of an EU army finds its way back into the news, causing a kerfuffle. The concept is both fantasy and bogeyman: For every federalist in Brussels who thinks a common defense force is what Europe needs to boost its standing in the world, there are those in London and elsewhere who recoil at the notion of a potential NATO rival.
But this year, far from the headlines, Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, quietly took a radical step down a path toward something that looks like an EU army while avoiding the messy politics associated with it: They announced the integration of their armed forces.
Romania’s entire military won’t join the Bundeswehr, nor will the Czech armed forces become a mere German subdivision. But in the next several months each country will integrate one brigade into the German armed forces: Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division. According to Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, “The German government is showing that it’s willing to proceed with European military integration” — even if others on the continent aren’t yet.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has repeatedly floated the idea of an EU army, only to be met with either ridicule or awkward silence. That remains the case even as the U.K., a perennial foe of the idea, is on its way out of the union. There’s little agreement among remaining member states over what exactly such a force would look like and which capabilities national armed forces would give up as a result. And so progress has been slow going. This March, the European Union created a joint military headquarters — but it’s only in charge of training missions in Somalia, Mali, and the Central African Republic and has a meager staff of 30. Other multinational concepts have been designed, such as the Nordic Battle Group, a small 2,400-troop rapid reaction force formed by the Baltic states and several Nordic countries and the Netherlands, and Britain’s Joint Expeditionary Force, a “mini-NATO” whose members include the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland. But in the absence of suitable deployment opportunities, such operations-based teams may as well not exist.
But under the bland label of the Framework Nations Concept, Germany has been at work on something far more ambitious — the creation of what is essentially a Bundeswehr-led network of European miniarmies. “The initiative came out of the weakness of the Bundeswehr,” said Justyna Gotkowska, a Northern Europe security analyst at Poland’s Centre for Eastern Studies think tank. “The Germans realized that the Bundeswehr needed to fill gaps in its land forces … in order to gain political and military influence within NATO.” An assist from junior partners may be Germany’s best shot at bulking out its military quickly — and German-led miniarmies may be Europe’s most realistic option if it’s to get serious about joint security. “It’s an attempt to prevent joint European security from completely failing,” Masala said.
“Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had dropped to 1.4 percent, where it remained for years. Indeed, between 2013 and 2016 defense spending was stuck at 1.2 percent — far from NATO’s 2 percent benchmark. In a 2014 report to the Bundestag, the German parliament, the Bundeswehr’s inspectors-general presented a woeful picture: Most of the Navy’s helicopters were not working, and of the Army’s 64 helicopters, only 18 were usable. And while the Cold War Bundeswehr had consisted of 370,000 troops, by last summer it was only 176,015 men and women strong.
Since then the Bundeswehr has grown to more than 178,000 active-duty troops; last year the government increased funding by 4.2 percent, and this year defense spending will grow by 8 percent. But Germany still lags far behind France and the U.K. as a military power. And boosting defense spending is not uncontroversial in Germany, which is wary of its history as a military power. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel recently said it was “completely unrealistic” to think that Germany would reach NATO’s defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of GDP — even though nearly all of Germany’s allies, from smaller European countries to the United States, are urging it to play a larger military role in the world.
Germany may not yet have the political will to expand its military forces on the scale that many are hoping for — but what it has had since 2013 is the Framework Nations Concept. For Germany, the idea is to share its resources with smaller countries in exchange for the use of their troops. For these smaller countries, the initiative is a way of getting Germany more involved in European security while sidestepping the tricky politics of Germany military expansion.
“It’s a move towards more European military independence,” Masala said. “The U.K. and France are not available to take a lead in European security” — the U.K. is on a collision course with its EU allies, while France, a military heavyweight, has often been a reluctant participant in multinational efforts within NATO. “That leaves Germany,” he said. Operationally, the resulting binational units are more deployable because they’re permanent (most multinational units have so far been ad hoc). Crucially for the junior partners, it also amplifies their military muscle. And should Germany decide to deploy an integrated unit, it could only do so with the junior partner’s consent.
Of course, since 1945 Germany has been extraordinarily reluctant to deploy its military abroad, until 1990 even barring the Bundeswehr from foreign deployments. Indeed, junior partners — and potential junior partners — hope that the Framework Nations arrangement will make Germany take on more responsibility for European security. So far, Germany and its multinational miniarmies remain only that: small-scale initiatives, far removed from a full-fledged European army. But the initiative is likely to grow. Germany’s partners have been touting the practical benefits of integration: For Romania and the Czech Republic, it means bringing their troops to the same level of training as the German military; for the Netherlands, it has meant regaining tank capabilities. (The Dutch had sold the last of their tanks in 2011, but the 43rd Mechanized Brigade’s troops, who are partially based with the 1st Armored Division in the western German city of Oldenburg, now drive the Germans’ tanks and could use them if deployed with the rest of the Dutch army.) Col. Anthony Leuvering, the 43rd Mechanized’s Oldenburg-based commander, told me that the integration has had remarkably few hiccups. “The Bundeswehr has some 180,000 personnel, but they don’t treat us like an underdog,” he said. He expects more countries to jump on the bandwagon: “Many, many countries want to cooperate with the Bundeswehr.” The Bundeswehr, in turn, has a list of junior partners in mind, said Robin Allers, a German associate professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies who has seen the German military’s list. According to Masala, the Scandinavian countries — which already use a large amount of German-made equipment — would be the best candidates for the Bundeswehr’s next round of integration.
So far, the low-profile and ad hoc approach of the Framework Nations Concept has worked to its advantage; few people in Europe have objected to the integration of Dutch or Romanian units into German divisions, partly because they may not have noticed. Whether there will be political repercussions should more nations sign up to the initiative is less clear.
Outside of politics, the real test of the Framework Nations’ value will be the integrated units’ success in combat. But the trickiest part of integration, on the battlefield and off, may turn out to be finding a lingua franca. Should troops learn each other’s languages? Or should the junior partner speak German? The German-speaking Dutch Col. Leuvering reports that the binational Oldenburg division is moving toward using English.
Montmorency
05-29-2018, 04:10
To the main point of the thread however in relation to the EU. What type of EU military or European national militaries would you think appropriate for the return of Russia and hard power?
TBH, I don't know or care enough to give a good answer. Part of it has to wedge into the political and logistical vulnerability of Russo-Chinese aggression: they probably can't hold foreign land for long. Course that comes down on the post-invasion side of things.
How does emerging tech come into it? Ultimately (unfortunately) autonomous weapons systems won't be foreclosed as an avenue of research, at least not by the US and China. The thought of furious citizen resistance might cow any adversarial administration, but if you can just exterminate them with some drone-bombs...
Montmorency
06-12-2018, 15:04
Merkel thinks (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/angela-merkel-clouds-cast-shadow-on-chancellor-s-worldview-a-1211091.html) we're all flacked.
Instead, she wanted to talk about the Peace of Augsburg, signed in 1555.
The chancellor has made frequent excursions into history lately. Indeed, the Peace of Augsburg also came up four weeks ago during her visit to the residence of the German ambassador in Washington. The treaty initiated a 60-year phase of peace between Protestants and Catholics after the bloody turmoil of the Reformation and it initially seemed as though people had finally come to their senses. But that image turned out to be a deceptive one. In 1618, a war began unlike any the Continent had ever seen before. By the time the inferno ended 30 years later, large parts of Germany had been depopulated and many cities left in ruins.
To Merkel, the Peace of Augsburg is much more than some distant historical date. Rather, it is a warning of just how thin the varnish covering civilization really is.
Donald Trump? For her, he is a man who has turned back the historical clock to zero hour and casts doubt on everything that has united the West for decades: NATO, trade agreements and the United Nations.
[...]
Vladimir Putin? A president who was once full of admiration for the West's performance, but at some point realized he would never be able to trigger an economic turnaround in his country and is now fully committed to brute force and repression, in Ukraine, in Syria and in Russia itself.
China? Proof that it is not impossible to reconcile a dictatorship with a market economy. Europe? Quarrelling, weakened by Brexit and paralyzed by agonizingly long decision-making procedures.
In the fall of 2016, Merkel evidently seriously considered withdrawing from politics. People she spoke to at the time say it was almost painful to see how coldly and soberly Merkel assessed her own situation -- the hatred she now provokes and the weariness that a long run as chancellor inevitably brings with it, especially in the age of instantaneous new media.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election in the U.S., Merkel would not have run again, says one person who speaks with her on an almost daily basis.
Merkel, it was said after Trump's election, had become the leader of the free world. But that's nonsense. She's a hardworking politician who has been around for ages and everyone knows her -- from the Saudi crown prince to Li Xi, the party secretary of Guangdong Province, with whom she had lunch a week ago Friday. They all appreciate her detailed knowledge, intelligence and patience. Yet like any leader who has been in office for a long time, Merkel is particularly good at explaining what is not possible.
In her thoughts, Merkel is actually more revolutionary. She feels everything needs to move much faster, in Europe and in Germany, which can't even manage to build an airport in its capital city -- in stark contrast to a China that can build entire metropolises from scratch within just a few years. During her trips to China, there is always a hint of appreciations for the Chinese government, which isn't burdened by protracted planning approval procedures and where no politician is forced to laboriously explain himself to the citizens. China is governed from the top down.
Something has to happen, Merkel said with concern as she traveled back to Berlin, impressed by the drive of Beijing's leaders. And then, in the same breath, she went on to explain why nothing could happen: because her hands are tied by German federalism, by the center-left Social Democrats in her government, and by the CSU, which often acts as more of an adversary than as a sister party.
Merkel says she doesn't lead by speeches and appeals. She acts as if it's a German virtue to reach your goal without much talk. But the truth is that she shirks the work of finding the right words to rally people around ideas that don't yet have majority support. Could Brandt's détente policy have existed were it not for great speeches? Or German reunification? One of the traits of the late Merkel era is that the chancellor's own silence fuels the very apathy that she so deeply laments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r63CsrHZGR8
rory_20_uk
06-12-2018, 15:51
"Vigorous" empires generally focus on the results they want and frankly bulldoze through changes that are good overall and ignore (or perhaps compensate) those whose lives are ruined. Be that the Romans, the British, the USA, China,
Then when things start to become sclerotic they invariably are eclipsed by others - China is not overly concerned with getting everything right and having endless meetings and consultations of every wrongdoing. They just get on with it; in the UK this was a pretty similar mindset to the Victorians where projects were completed with a loss of life we would not countenance today.
That could well then lead to the fact there appear to be few "big ideas" at the moment in Europe. Pride in anything might upset some group somewhere and so fear of making a decision leads to indecision and stagnation.
~:smoking:
I wasn't aware that Merkel had any ideas. :creep:
Also, shirk should be the word that describes scratching your fingernails on a chalkboard.
You still use these, figures
rory_20_uk
06-21-2018, 11:14
Poland is throwing its toys around. Perhaps because they are not going to be given so much money in the future in exchange for their autonomy...
~:smoking:
edyzmedieval
07-25-2018, 23:36
Apparently Juncker averted a trade war and has managed to keep the trading going with USA without tariffs.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-26-2018, 00:13
Apparently Juncker averted a trade war and has managed to keep the trading going with USA without tariffs.
Getting a somewhat better deal has been the sole purpose of all the Trumpian trade threatwork.
a completely inoffensive name
07-26-2018, 02:56
Conservatives are taking this as a big win. Sad. Did we even get anything down on paper?
Montmorency
07-26-2018, 04:00
EU/Germany's main goal to avoid tariffs on auto and industrial goods.
Conservatives are taking this as a big win. Sad. Did we even get anything down on paper?
Someone verify this for me: Trump admin made a similar set of aspirational "deals" with China ~April, but these haven't been followed up on and instead escalating rounds of sanctions have been exchanged. Now Trump is threatening to sanction all US-China trade.
Am I right?
What it looks like to me is, Trump wants to foist American exports - such as exist - onto the world while sharply curtailing the permeability of America to imports from the world. Very free trade. Much fool.
To me this sounds a bit like the attempt to force-feed us Europeans with more HFCS and trans-fats...
I don't really care how unfair it is that our products are better/subsidized, I don't want to buy your canned cancer either way. :wall:
If they flood the market with cheap, unhealthy food, it might still become the only thing our supermarkets offer, at least in the price range affordable for most.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-26-2018, 16:14
To me this sounds a bit like the attempt to force-feed us Europeans with more HFCS and trans-fats...
I don't really care how unfair it is that our products are better/subsidized, I don't want to buy your canned cancer either way. :wall:
If they flood the market with cheap, unhealthy food, it might still become the only thing our supermarkets offer, at least in the price range affordable for most.
Nonsense. We're more than happy to let you appease our corn farmers by buying tanker loads of ethanol to add to your gasoline instead. As long as our agro lobby is happy, it need not by HFCS.
Kinda wary as well, going to stick with made in the Netherlands, soy and corn-syrup isn't necessarily bad for you but this isn't something to cheer for
Furunculus
09-12-2018, 22:30
Remain - I just want tomorrow to looks roughly the same as today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/12/juncker-calls-on-eu-to-seize-chance-to-become-major-sovereign-power
Remain - I just want tomorrow to looks roughly the same as today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/12/juncker-calls-on-eu-to-seize-chance-to-become-major-sovereign-power
That's basically the idea the EU should be (and was to some extent) following anyway.
Remember how the people in the 13 colonies didn't want to unite and the politicians did it anyway? The number of people complaining today is relatively small, especially when it comes to comparisons to other nations, the relative power, etc.
If it's better to be a big bully nation than a small victim one, why shouldn't I want to be just that? Competition is the game! It's only natural.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2018, 00:48
T...Remember how the people in the 13 colonies didn't want to unite and the politicians did it anyway?...
There were, indeed, a number of voices raised in concern over the Constitution. The last of the 13 to ratify it, Rhode Island, did so with 18 stated caveats and 21 proposed amendments.
Furunculus
09-13-2018, 07:47
That's basically the idea the EU should be (and was to some extent) following anyway.
Remember how the people in the 13 colonies didn't want to unite and the politicians did it anyway? The number of people complaining today is relatively small, ....why shouldn't I want to be just that? Competition is the game! It's only natural.
No reason why you shouldn't. Just so long as we honestly acknowledge the goal, and people who don't share it can decide to exit.
a completely inoffensive name
09-16-2018, 22:58
The thirteen colonies had a clear external threat and none were in a position to gain independence by themselves. After the war, everyone willingly played nice...for a time. The EU is a union of already independent states held together by words, not by action.
Montmorency
09-17-2018, 00:45
The thirteen colonies had a clear external threat and none were in a position to gain independence by themselves. After the war, everyone willingly played nice...for a time. The EU is a union of already independent states held together by words, not by action.
Not quite. Held together by economics. That's like, the whole point of the post-war projects, right? It's like Zionism for Europeans.
In American History, the Articles of Confederation was plagued with problems even after the war and was always on the brink of collapsing. It essentially took men who worked very hard on the concept of an United States, roping in George Washington, the national hero. It was his celebrity status which got people attending the meetings for the beginning steps to get ratified as any attempts to remove state powers were automatically rejected as all votes had to be unanimous.
The concept to returning to those times is pretty Alien now in North America. If they were unsuccessful, the North American continent would look very different.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-17-2018, 17:16
In American History, the Articles of Confederation was plagued with problems even after the war and was always on the brink of collapsing. It essentially took men who worked very hard on the concept of an United States, roping in George Washington, the national hero. It was his celebrity status which got people attending the meetings for the beginning steps to get ratified as any attempts to remove state powers were automatically rejected as all votes had to be unanimous.
The concept to returning to those times is pretty Alien now in North America. If they were unsuccessful, the North American continent would look very different.
Well said.
George was also vital tactically to the people who wanted a replacement for the Articles. His status made him a shoe-in to be picked to preside. When they finally got a quorum to begin, GW was selected, recognized one of his fellow Virginians and the "Virginia Plan" was on the table immediately to set the tone (new constitution) for the convention.
edyzmedieval
09-30-2018, 21:45
Apparently the French President isn't doing too well - given the fact that this has EU impact, can someone elaborate?
Byebye childless Mutti, Merkel is bonjoured, what a disaster that 'woman'
Translation: Merkel steps down as chairwoman of the CDU and does not want to run for reelection in 2021, decisions likely caused by recent losses of the CDU and CSU in state elections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46020745
yeajyeah, and she wants to spend more time with her family
yeajyeah, and she wants to spend more time with her family
Perhaps, so who do you think will replace her?
Perhaps, so who do you think will replace her?
I don't know, probably someone from the CSU or closer to it, immigration HAS become an issue, Germans didn't ask for those 1.6 million hardly screened newcommers
Gilrandir
11-01-2018, 12:44
Byebye childless Mutti, Merkel is bonjoured, what a disaster that 'woman'
Translation: Merkel steps down as chairwoman of the CDU and does not want to run for reelection in 2021, decisions likely caused by recent losses of the CDU and CSU in state elections.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46020745
As we say in Ukraine, when you leave without saying goodbye, it is a British departure. But when you say goodbye and never leave, it is a Jewish departure. It seems Fragony has bade her farewell but she never left (and won't for quite a time).
She better should, she can do no good with just about anyone anymore. Populist right can drink her blood because of her immigration policy, left blame her for the rise of the populist right, her own party blames her for poor election results. She inherited a stable Germany and leaves a devided one. Internationally she made herself impossible as well. Germany has little friends left, Netherlands perhaps but only the government, who aren't very popular either I expect a beating
Gilrandir
11-01-2018, 18:33
She better should, she can do no good with just about anyone anymore. Populist right can drink her blood because of her immigration policy, left blame her for the rise of the populist right, her own party blames her for poor election results. She inherited a stable Germany and leaves a devided one. Internationally she made herself impossible as well. Germany has little friends left, Netherlands perhaps but only the government, who aren't very popular either I expect a beating
Sometimes things happen because they were meant to, and no one can change them. The fat 2000s lulled you and you thought that it will last forever. When the times changed (what with the immigrant deluge and depredations of Russia) NOBODY was ready for it and I don't think ANYONE would do better in her place. Or do you have some German politician in mind who would schaff das better? If you do, out with him (her). But even if you do, we can only guess if (s)he might have done better. Big catastrophes can hardly be stemmed by any person. Otherwise we might claim that when Beskar started moderating this site, it was a thriving place teeming with activities and discussions, and now it has petered out to a trickle. So would it be right to blame him for it, or would it be wiser to realize that it was initially game centered and when the game became outdated people just moved to other venues with newer game discussions?
No German politician should have to, according to the Dublin-treaty asylum should be asked in the first European country they set foot on, Merkel just shoved that aside
Montmorency
11-02-2018, 13:23
No German politician should have to, according to the Dublin-treaty asylum should be asked in the first European country they set foot on, Merkel just shoved that aside
Wouldn't it have been easy to leave Greece, the Balkans, and the migrants to get figged? Or to close Germany and route the migrants to everywhere but - perhaps toward the Netherlands? The decision to concentrate the migrants in Germany was a calculated strategic compromise to rescue the weakest EU/European countries and avert humanitarian catastrophe - at least temporarily. As the main beneficiary of the EU, there was certainly an element of self-interest by Germany in stabilizing the southern flank, as well as in the attempt to equally distribute the burden throughout the EU via quotas.
You still seem to think Merkel waved a magic wand that materialized thousands of bodies out of thin air. Germany's primary failure was in not pushing harder and sacrificing more in shouldering the burden in order to reform EU-wide policy and give Italy and Greece a long-term solution to inevitably being the first port of entry for migrants from the south.
It ś very simple what should have been done, fortifying Europeś borders, instead Merkel made a birdcall.She is done for, she lost all control. The eastern-european countries do not listen to an ex-stasi, in the north the populist right is growing everywhere, gein wiedergutmachen
Montmorency
11-03-2018, 01:17
It ś very simple what should have been done, fortifying Europeś borders, instead Merkel made a birdcall.She is done for, she lost all control. The eastern-european countries do not listen to an ex-stasi, in the north the populist right is growing everywhere, gein wiedergutmachen
On the subject of whether it would have been a good or feasible policy for the EU as a unit to remilitarize and mobilize for the sole purpose of inflicting violence on hundreds of thousands of black and Muslim people we can differ (vehemently), but to say "Merkel made a birdcall" is not reality.
The reactionaries are elitists, not populists. Better for you to discover this sooner rather than later.
Gilrandir
11-03-2018, 05:35
On the subject of whether it would have been a good or feasible policy for the EU as a unit to remilitarize and mobilize for the sole purpose of inflicting violence on hundreds of thousands of black and Muslim people we can differ (vehemently), but to say "Merkel made a birdcall" is not reality.
I see the sole purpose of mobilizing in fending off unwanted intruders.
On the subject of whether it would have been a good or feasible policy for the EU as a unit to remilitarize and mobilize for the sole purpose of inflicting violence on hundreds of thousands of black and Muslim people we can differ (vehemently), but to say "Merkel made a birdcall" is not reality.
The reactionaries are elitists, not populists. Better for you to discover this sooner rather than later.
Who talks about killing. Australian method, dragging the ships back
edit; Asia Bibi, now THAT is someone who deserves to be sheltered. Iranian women (yummie) and leftist students as well, they are actually in danger
Montmorency
11-04-2018, 00:46
I see the sole purpose of mobilizing in fending off unwanted intruders.
Who talks about killing. Australian method, dragging the ships back
edit; Asia Bibi, now THAT is someone who deserves to be sheltered. Iranian women (yummie) and leftist students as well, they are actually in danger
You should have thought of that in 2012, at the latest. If you want to fault European and world leadership for failing to do foreign policy and economic policy properly in the years leading up to the migrant crises (which will last beyond any of our lifetimes), you have no qualms from me. But if your reaction is take it out on the desperate and most affected at the height of the ordeal, think more carefully.
Ew. If Iranian women are in danger, are women anywhere else in the Middle East also in danger?
Gilrandir
11-04-2018, 04:53
You should have thought of that in 2012, at the latest. If you want to fault European and world leadership for failing to do foreign policy and economic policy properly in the years leading up to the migrant crises (which will last beyond any of our lifetimes), you have no qualms from me. But if your reaction is take it out on the desperate and most affected at the height of the ordeal, think more carefully.
So you support letting a column of Central Americans into the US?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/01/migrant-caravan-mexico-president-donald-trump-honduras-us-mexico-border-troops-immigration/1843469002/
You should have thought of that in 2012, at the latest. If you want to fault European and world leadership for failing to do foreign policy and economic policy properly in the years leading up to the migrant crises (which will last beyond any of our lifetimes), you have no qualms from me. But if your reaction is take it out on the desperate and most affected at the height of the ordeal, think more carefully.
Ew. If Iranian women are in danger, are women anywhere else in the Middle East also in danger?
Well I thought of it, politicians didn't. As for women in the middle-east, yeah, I would be much more lenient for them nut they are kinda trapped
Not in our lifetime, apres moi le deluge?
Montmorency
11-04-2018, 18:58
So you support letting a column of Central Americans into the US?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/01/migrant-caravan-mexico-president-donald-trump-honduras-us-mexico-border-troops-immigration/1843469002/
Do I support following national and international law on the processing of asylum claims? Yes.
The situation will continue to degrade in Latin America as violence increases and crops continue to fail (hi climate change!). Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans (population Central America ~ Ukraine) have already migrated to Mexico in the past few years; without serious reform eventually collapse will cascade... It's the same story all over the world. People today flee their homes for the same reason people have since the advent of sedentary living. We are reaping the whirlwind of our policies. A siege mentality is detrimental to both outsiders and insiders.
Do I support following national and international law on the processing of asylum claims? Yes.
The situation will continue to degrade in Latin America as violence increases and crops continue to fail (hi climate change!). Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans (population Central America ~ Ukraine) have already migrated to Mexico in the past few years; without serious reform eventually collapse will cascade... It's the same story all over the world. People today flee their homes for the same reason people have since the advent of sedentary living. We are reaping the whirlwind of our policies. A siege mentality is detrimental to both outsiders and insiders.
I hate to say it but you are so dumb. Immigrants simply go to the west because it's easier, they will be provided, and even complain and ravage stores and harass women
I know what we hauled in as I do actually help real refugees. Finding knives in your bed, wir schaffen das. Not the rocket-scientists we need. Just go
Montmorency
11-05-2018, 01:15
I hate to say it but you are so dumb. Immigrants simply go to the west because it's easier, they will be provided, and even complain and ravage stores and harass women
I know what we hauled in as I do actually help real refugees. Finding knives in your bed, wir schaffen das. Not the rocket-scientists we need. Just go
No. Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed. If you want them to go away you need to make sure where they're going will not see them starved or killed.
Try to imagine, Fragony, that someone whom you don't like may still be a "real refugee". Your sympathy for someone is not the basis on which the status of refugee is conferred. For example, let's say there's a pro-Nazi German in Poland who's done awful things. Real war criminal, right? But here come the Soviets driving out all the ethnic Germans! Government in the area has collapsed and now he's a private citizen on the run. Boom, refugee. You don't have to like the man, or respect him, or wish him well, but he's a refugee nevertheless. It's possible to believe a whole class of people are inferior, or evil, or unworthy in some sense, and it would still not make them a refugee or not a refugee on that account alone.
Also, if you feel comfortable identifying people who 'deserve' help on the basis of your personal interactions with them, then how can you justify writing off literally all the people whom you've never met and know nothing about? Maybe if you met some more of them, you would get to hear about their knives in the bed.
No. Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed. If you want them to go away you need to make sure where they're going will not see them starved or killed.
Try to imagine, Fragony, that someone whom you don't like may still be a "real refugee". Your sympathy for someone is not the basis on which the status of refugee is conferred. For example, let's say there's a pro-Nazi German in Poland who's done awful things. Real war criminal, right? But here come the Soviets driving out all the ethnic Germans! Government in the area has collapsed and now he's a private citizen on the run. Boom, refugee. You don't have to like the man, or respect him, or wish him well, but he's a refugee nevertheless. It's possible to believe a whole class of people are inferior, or evil, or unworthy in some sense, and it would still not make them a refugee or not a refugee on that account alone.
Also, if you feel comfortable identifying people who 'deserve' help on the basis of your personal interactions with them, then how can you justify writing off literally all the people whom you've never met and know nothing about? Maybe if you met some more of them, you would get to hear about their knives in the bed.
Most 'refugees' are simply welfare tourists, almost all are young men who should be building up their own countries instead. Human traffickers must be stopped, not aided. NGO's even give the boats back to them. It has become better now but there is still a lot to be improved, Eurpean countries aren't to be held responsible for their breeding. Liking has nothing to do with it, I don't dislike them, but I don't welcome them either they do not belong here. I only care for real refugees and screening is way of. It is getting better though but huge mistakes have been made. I am nota coldhearted person, quite the contrary, I actually enjoy the diversity, but allowing immigration on such a scale is a mistake
Gilrandir
11-05-2018, 12:13
Do I support following national and international law on the processing of asylum claims? Yes.
And while the claims are being processed (which, given the amount of immigrants and red tape speed, is likely to take months) you are ready to have them camped in your backyard? With no job, no food, no medical care?
Most people do not want to leave for anywhere. They come to avoid starving or being killed.
Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.
rory_20_uk
11-05-2018, 21:14
Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.
That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.
~:smoking:
That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.
~:smoking:
In Merkel's case just ignored. It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway. She isn't just stupid she's evil, an ex stasi her codename was Erica, I wonder how many got killed because of her
It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway.
This says a lot more about you and where you get your news from than it does about Merkel.
Montmorency
11-06-2018, 00:31
Most 'refugees' are simply welfare tourists, almost all are young men who should be building up their own countries instead. Human traffickers must be stopped, not aided. NGO's even give the boats back to them. It has become better now but there is still a lot to be improved, Eurpean countries aren't to be held responsible for their breeding. Liking has nothing to do with it, I don't dislike them, but I don't welcome them either they do not belong here. I only care for real refugees and screening is way of. It is getting better though but huge mistakes have been made. I am nota coldhearted person, quite the contrary, I actually enjoy the diversity, but allowing immigration on such a scale is a mistake
Virtually all of that is false, I'm afraid. You have the wrong information. :shrug:
How can you tell they are not real refugees? How did you determine the people you helped out were real refugees? Maybe they weren't real refugees? If you say you could personally screen them reliably but the government can't (you trust blogs more than institutions, but do you trust blogs as a substitute for your own eyes and ears?), then it would be irresponsible to reject all others in principle without screening them. Go find some of these "fake refugees" and apply your proficient methods to assign them a firmer designation.
And while the claims are being processed (which, given the amount of immigrants and red tape speed, is likely to take months) you are ready to have them camped in your backyard? With no job, no food, no medical care?
The government should hire more judges and lawyers to process the log.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, among other agencies, is equipped to provide services, and can easily be expanded in scope and funding (currently under a billion $) if the government were inclined.
Concentrating the asylees 'in a backyard' would constrain their ability to integrate, find work, and access many services (including legal). They should be dispersed throughout the country on their own recognizance so that they can be assisted by community and civil groups. Currently asylum seekers are required to wait 150 days into the process before being permitted to look for work, which is a disadvantage.
Let's all remember that this is not Andorra we're talking about, but the United States anticipating maybe a couple thousand persons arriving on foot at the border sometime in Winter '19. To fearmonger around this influx would be the basest kind of self-imposed delusion. If we were serious about preparing our countries for the coming influxes of refugees (in the millions), then we would be mobilizing collectively to change our way of life and not raving about Jewish-conspiracy financed jihadi marauders bringing leprosy, smallpox, and miscegenation to White America (literally all charges Trump and the Republicans have advanced to the public).
Anyone who wishes for martial law, for suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights, and for the military to receive (and follow) illegal orders to massacre noncombatants as a response to news that a modest number of foreigners may eventually arrive at the southern border who are prepared to meticulously comply with border regulations and law of asylum is an enemy of humanity and the United States, plain and simple.
Then it would be enough for them to have crossed into Mexico. But they are crusading northwards wishing not abstract safety and food, but American safety and food.
That is the critical bit that so often seems to be overlooked - one is supposed to seek asylum in the first country which is safe.
~:smoking:
1. No, one need not. (http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55da2)
2. Most of them get discouraged and stay in Mexico anyway, besides all those who aim for Mexico as their final destination. This will of course, given the continuing lack of effective US foreign policy, contribute to Mexico's (ongoing) destabilization.
3. Under what circumstances will (the individual or family leaving due to lack of food or job or personal security) moving to a foreign country with even heavier gang activity, a hostile government that is stingy at the best of times towards even citizens, and no connections on which to rely, substantially improve one's security? Not often. Do you think along the lines of 'those Latin people are all the same, so one country or another shouldn't make a difference to them'?
In Merkel's case just ignored. It isn't our fault that the childless mutti is barren, who would fuck that anyway. She isn't just stupid she's evil, an ex stasi her codename was Erica, I wonder how many got killed because of her
Do you prefer that she would have demanded the refugees stay in Italy and Greece (mostly Greece at the time)? What if they claimed to be overwhelmed and refused to participate? Should the German EU military have closed their borders and advanced to occupy key positions in those countries until they agreed to take full responsibility for all refugees without EU assistance?
As with other things, you have an irrational view of Merkel.
No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated
Gilrandir
11-06-2018, 12:12
The government should hire more judges and lawyers to process the log.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement, among other agencies, is equipped to provide services, and can easily be expanded in scope and funding (currently under a billion $) if the government were inclined.
Concentrating the asylees 'in a backyard' would constrain their ability to integrate, find work, and access many services (including legal). They should be dispersed throughout the country on their own recognizance so that they can be assisted by community and civil groups. Currently asylum seekers are required to wait 150 days into the process before being permitted to look for work, which is a disadvantage.
Your extensive usage of modal verbs shows a wishful thinking, the world as it should be.
We are speaking of the things that are. And in this World That Is the immigrant posse will still be camped in your backyard while the officials are warming up to what they should do.
Let's all remember that this is not Andorra we're talking about, but the United States anticipating maybe a couple thousand persons arriving on foot at the border sometime in Winter '19. To fearmonger around this influx would be the basest kind of self-imposed delusion. If we were serious about preparing our countries for the coming influxes of refugees (in the millions), then we would be mobilizing collectively to change our way of life and not raving about Jewish-conspiracy financed jihadi marauders bringing leprosy, smallpox, and miscegenation to White America (literally all charges Trump and the Republicans have advanced to the public).
Precedentially-wise, others will follow suit if they see that anyone who just crosses the border (or even forces it) is readily accepted as a wronged poor soul.
Anyone who wishes for martial law, for suspension of habeas corpus and other civil rights, and for the military to receive (and follow) illegal orders to massacre noncombatants as a response to news that a modest number of foreigners may eventually arrive at the southern border who are prepared to meticulously comply with border regulations and law of asylum is an enemy of humanity and the United States, plain and simple.
:dizzy2: So if I want to see no unwanted intruders in my backyard, I chafe for martial law, am ready to massacre noncombatants (or at least give order to) and eventually an enemy of humanity.
And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?
No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated
Trump is also hated, but we don't see you talk about him like you talk about her. One might wonder why that is.
And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?
And Coca Cola is murdering union reps in Colombia. Sometimes you just use violence to make more money, so what? IF the US don't give a shit about the people south of their border, why should the people from the south give any shits about what people in the US want?
I don't like Trump, just because the always objective notion that I don't like his face. More then enough reasons to hate Merkel though she is a disastrous woman and she cannot even admit her mistakes, she is a dumb eastblock workhorse fueled by passive agression, that look in her eyes, total stupidity or howdareyou brrrrrr
Montmorency
11-06-2018, 14:44
No I don't, the rules are clear. If she is in need of atonement she shouldn't bother others with it. A lot of Germans must have an irrational view of Merkel, she is the first post-ww2 chancelor that is outright hated, others were disliked, but not hated
Answer my question about you evaluating the validity of refugee claims. How do you know who is and who isn't a refugee, and if you are able to tell, how can you dismiss a whole group of people without individually evaluating them yourself?
Your extensive usage of modal verbs shows a wishful thinking, the world as it should be.
We are speaking of the things that are. And in this World That Is the immigrant posse will still be camped in your backyard while the officials are warming up to what they should do.
No, they would not be, and I don't see how you come up with that.
The Trump administration's idea is of course concentration camps, but heretofore the practice of leaving them with court appointments on their own recognizance has worked well enough to avoid claimants waiting out on the streets. They are dispersed throughout the country and are fed and sheltered by charity and civil organizations when family, friends, or government subsidies are not available. This system can easily be improved at little cost.
Precedentially-wise, others will follow suit if they see that anyone who just crosses the border (or even forces it) is readily accepted as a wronged poor soul.
Border crossings are at or around all-time highs despite the open hostility of the Trump administration. Need is what drives emigration, opportunity is what makes destinations. Your implication is that America should be run into the ground so that people would prefer to flee it rather than come to it. Our only options are not to kill ourselves out of spite or to passively wait for the world to collapse; global governance needs reform and immigrant scapegoating is a vile red herring.
:dizzy2: So if I want to see no unwanted intruders in my backyard, I chafe for martial law, am ready to massacre noncombatants (or at least give order to) and eventually an enemy of humanity.
No, I'm describing the rhetoric in this country and with whom you are finding common cause, since you don't seem to have more than a superficial knowledge of the situation.
And I'm more than sure that meticulously complying with border regulations is the last things the modest foreigners are inclined on. They mean to force their entrance into the US and demand for jobs and food. Ohterwise why is there an order to strenghten the border guards down south?
You would be wrong. They intend to present themselves at the border for processing, just as the other caravans have done so far. The caravans that have been coming for years, by the way.
You've fallen into a sad bit of illogic. If a fascist demands more troops at the border (skirting illegality under domestic law) in order to control a few civilians yet a thousand miles away (whom he wrongly describes as intruders, invaders, and vermin just as you do) than are in total deployed in Afghanistan, on the eve of a critical election, it is not because he is meeting a genuine threat or has the interests of the country in mind. Don't make me troll you by asking how many ethnic Russians the Ukrainian Nazis have massacred to force Putin to deploy troops to Donetsk-Luhansk.
The Pentagon, thankfully, has acknowledged internally (https://grondamorin.com/2018/11/02/leaked-pentagon-documents-paints-different-picture-of-refugee-caravan-than-president-does/) that there is no security threat from a ragtag band of immigrants and have declined orders to assist with enforcement of border law or immigrant detention (which would be illegal, let me say again).
The cost of this deployment, projected in the hundreds of millions, far outweighs any costs of accepting these people.
This is not a serious news story, and it only became one because the media is slavishly devoted to amplifying Trump's vapid provocations.
Gilrandir
11-06-2018, 16:17
IF the US don't give a shit about the people south of their border, why should the people from the south give any shits about what people in the US want?
Why should a country's officials take care of the citizens of other countries?
Border crossings are at or around all-time highs despite the open hostility of the Trump administration. Need is what drives emigration, opportunity is what makes destinations.
Your implication is that America should be run into the ground so that people would prefer to flee it rather than come to it. Our only options are not to kill ourselves out of spite or to passively wait for the world to collapse; global governance needs reform and immigrant scapegoating is a vile red herring.
So you admit those are immigrants, not refugees?
You've fallen into a sad bit of illogic. If a fascist demands more troops at the border (skirting illegality under domestic law) in order to control a few civilians yet a thousand miles away (whom he wrongly describes as intruders, invaders, and vermin just as you do) than are in total deployed in Afghanistan, on the eve of a critical election, it is not because he is meeting a genuine threat or has the interests of the country in mind. Don't make me troll you by asking how many ethnic Russians the Ukrainian Nazis have massacred to force Putin to deploy troops to Donetsk-Luhansk.
1. I would be very much obliged if you quoted me using the words "invaders" and "vermin".
Or is it just in line with accusing me of demanding martial law and civilian massacres?
2. You have made your bed by voting a fascist in, now lie in it.
The Pentagon, thankfully, has acknowledged internally (https://grondamorin.com/2018/11/02/leaked-pentagon-documents-paints-different-picture-of-refugee-caravan-than-president-does/) that there is no security threat from a ragtag band of immigrants and have declined orders to assist with enforcement of border law or immigrant detention (which would be illegal, let me say again).
When a significant amount of people is jobless and homeless, it won't be long before the security threat pops up.
@Monty @ first quention,
Why aren't they? There haven't been any serious incidents in the Netherlands, but a 'refugee' randomly started cutting throats, other started stabbing, other attacked a group of Israeli tourists. It are small incidents and nobody died, the AIVD(Dutch FBI in a way) prevented something much worse though but that could be bullshit, they had AK's and explosives, I don't know it that is true. But why are they here.
Why should a country's officials take care of the citizens of other countries?
Basic human decency?
Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?
Basic human decency?
Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?
Kinda funny, I am just listening a record, 'all in all you are just a brick in the wall'. The security measures we take here are jokingly called Merkel lego, concrete blocks. That isn't really funny it is coldhearted sarcasm
rory_20_uk
11-06-2018, 20:30
Basic human decency is a myth: we are prepared to spend far more on a new phone than giving to others. We are for human rights in the sense we are prepared to sign a petition or like a Facebook post but nothing else really. We only invade other countries for selfish goals rather than to help the locals.
America fools, if anyone, themselves. Yes, they are the most powerful militarily and have tended to support a world order that benefits themselves (lately loosing faith in it since they have only most, not all of the power). But a leader? Far from it - bribing and threatening others to be on their side is hardly "leadership".
~:smoking:
Montmorency
11-07-2018, 03:54
So you admit those are immigrants, not refugees?
Nice try. Refugees are a subset of emigrants. A helpful mnemonic is that asylum seekers are to immigrants as refugees are to emigrants. Of course any given person tends to be both emigrant and immigrant at the same time, unless you consider the "internally displaced".
1. I would be very much obliged if you quoted me using the words "invaders" and "vermin".
Or is it just in line with accusing me of demanding martial law and civilian massacres?
I told you that it's Trump and the Republicans who reason this way, and wondering how it is you fall into a parallel groove.
2. You have made your bed by voting a fascist in, now lie in it.
You made your bed by defying Putin's order in Ukraine. :shrug:
Let's see how the midterms go.
When a significant amount of people is jobless and homeless, it won't be long before the security threat pops up.
Include a few more indicators and you're on your way to accounting for Bernie Sanders and the resurgence of social democracy.
@Monty @ first quention,
Why aren't they? There haven't been any serious incidents in the Netherlands, but a 'refugee' randomly started cutting throats, other started stabbing, other attacked a group of Israeli tourists. It are small incidents and nobody died, the AIVD(Dutch FBI in a way) prevented something much worse though but that could be bullshit, they had AK's and explosives, I don't know it that is true. But why are they here.
You said you are a good arbiter of who is and is not a refugee, and the government (nor the "multicultural left") is not a good arbiter. So you met some people, and decided they were refugees. You didn't meet all the rest of the people, yet you have decided that they aren't refugees. Shouldn't you meet them personally before passing judgement if your judgement is especially good? What if for every 'goatherder on the wrong side of the mountain', a hundred have 'knives in the bed'? Wouldn't you want to invest some time and effort before condemning the latter for the sake of the former?
Basic human decency?
Not being full of shit when they claim to be some beacon of humanity and human rights or when they talk about "liberating" other countries? Funny when your president is called the "leader of the free world" and your border is a wall. Since when are walls a symbol of freedom?
Trump is of a mind that barbed wire "used properly" is a beautiful thing (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/trump-barbed-wire-used-properly-can-be-a-beautiful-sight/vi-BBPiFIg).
The better question is, why not? Unless there is some critical and pressing reason to reject an individual (an individual mind you, not a whole race, religion, or ethnicity), why should a person have their movements restricted so? Is there a zombie apocalypse going down?
Gil, this ain't the Soviet Union. Thank you very much.
Basic human decency is a myth: we are prepared to spend far more on a new phone than giving to others. We are for human rights in the sense we are prepared to sign a petition or like a Facebook post but nothing else really. We only invade other countries for selfish goals rather than to help the locals.
America fools, if anyone, themselves. Yes, they are the most powerful militarily and have tended to support a world order that benefits themselves (lately loosing faith in it since they have only most, not all of the power). But a leader? Far from it - bribing and threatening others to be on their side is hardly "leadership".
~:smoking:
People are decent when it comes to the personal. If you introduce systems and abstractions, they grow colder. Objectively, allowing immigration is one of the easiest ways we have to improve the lives of multitudes. That's easier to swallow if you personally empathize with immigrants. Contesting demonization of immigrants (seriously, to the tune of 'wetback darkie ISIS cartel smallpox lepers here to destroy our way of life!!!') and at least maintaining the current immigration framework in America are one readily available facets of keeping the decency machine running. Are you convinced the improvements of the past century are both impossible and ephemeral? They will be if we don't defy the Trumpian vision of nations locking their citizens in, shutting foreigners out, and riding roughshod over both in the name of "freedom" while the aristocrats pick our bones...
The American Dream is believing that America can one day become what it has claimed to always have been.
Gilrandir
11-07-2018, 11:54
Basic human decency?
American taxpayers aren't supposed to finance that kind of human decency.
I told you that it's Trump and the Republicans who reason this way, and wondering how it is you fall into a parallel groove.
Same reasoning isn't a reason to pass on to my mouth the words I didn't use. And parallel lines never cross each other.
You made your bed by defying Putin's order in Ukraine. :shrug:
Unlike you, I don't complain. But I thought we were discussing immigration to the US, weren't we?
Gil, this ain't the Soviet Union. Thank you very much.
I can't claim the credit for the fact there ain't no Soviet Union. So you thank the wrong person.
American taxpayers aren't supposed to finance that kind of human decency.
Who decides what they're supposed to finance? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The inscription on the statue of liberty suggests that you're wrong.
Gilrandir
11-08-2018, 05:46
Who decides what they're supposed to finance? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
The inscription on the statue of liberty suggests that you're wrong.
So inscriptions are used instead of laws?
Citizens of a country (via taxes) finance the needs of their own country.
Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.
Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.
Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 08:07
Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here
So immigrants costing more than they pay in taxes is the foundation of the problem? What would you say if there is plentiful evidence that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in state provided services?
So immigrants costing more than they pay in taxes is the foundation of the problem? What would you say if there is plentiful evidence that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in state provided services?
lol they cost 8 billion a year, and that is just in the Neds, what do we get back, nothing. Crime and disrespect. Not say that there is no silver lining some are great, but a lot are not. It angers me that christians and gays have to be scared here, it angers me that women feel unsafe, it angers me that shopkeepers feel unsafe, fuck it all, poor guests. The ones I want here I have enough fingers to count them on, and welcome they are they can use a room, use my bathroom, no pay required as long as I like you. Social code is broken, the Dutch code is to live and let live
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 10:19
lol they cost 8 billion a year, and that is just in the Neds, what do we get back, nothing. Crime and disrespect. Not say that there is no silver lining some are great, but a lot are not. It angers me that christians and gays have to be scared here, it angers me that women feel unsafe, it angers me that shopkeepers feel unsafe, fuck it all, poor guests. The ones I want here I have enough fingers to count them on, and welcome they are they can use a room, use my bathroom, no pay required as long as I like you. Social code is broken, the Dutch code is to live and let live
If there is evidence from respected institutions that immigrants pay much more taxes than they cost in state services, would you be in favour of them? I'm asking you this question. Don't deflect by saying that they cost a lot and so on.
If there is evidence from respected institutions that immigrants pay much more taxes than they cost in state services, would you be in favour of them? I'm asking you this question. Don't deflect by saying that they cost a lot and so on.
Yes there are, 80 bllion so far and counting. That is just the Netherlands. It is just dumb. We owe them abdolutily nothing. and as a thanks women get raped. I like women, I want to love them not rape them.
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 10:33
Yes there are, 80 bllion so far and counting. That is just the Netherlands. It is just dumb.
I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.
rory_20_uk
11-08-2018, 10:47
People are decent when it comes to the personal. If you introduce systems and abstractions, they grow colder. Objectively, allowing immigration is one of the easiest ways we have to improve the lives of multitudes. That's easier to swallow if you personally empathize with immigrants. Contesting demonization of immigrants (seriously, to the tune of 'wetback darkie ISIS cartel smallpox lepers here to destroy our way of life!!!') and at least maintaining the current immigration framework in America are one readily available facets of keeping the decency machine running. Are you convinced the improvements of the past century are both impossible and ephemeral? They will be if we don't defy the Trumpian vision of nations locking their citizens in, shutting foreigners out, and riding roughshod over both in the name of "freedom" while the aristocrats pick our bones...
The American Dream is believing that America can one day become what it has claimed to always have been.
I agree that most people are decent when it comes to those that they care about, and this quickly drops the further away they get - since Christmas is a time to shower one's children with expensive gifts, not help people starving elsewhere.
Immigration to improve the lives of the multitudes is as short term as giving food to someone and saying "problem solved!" First off, the West is struggling with taking on a minute fraction of the potential numbers; those helped are often the ones most able to travel, not the ones most in need. Secondly, the birth rate in these countries means that all the people leaving creates a temporary reduction in population at best. It solves nothing.
People generally are OK with immigrants that assimilate. It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are. Ethnicity, religion and especially culture create divides. And two out of the three can alter to shift to their new reality - and the third decreases with inter-generational breeding.
What were the improvements of the last century? That the USA finally decided to stop treating people of African descent as third class citizens and upgraded them to second class? The limited immigration allowed to the west? Globally, I think it likely that freedom of movement was theoretically better in the British Empire (no need to curtail it - who could afford it?) Improvements have been mainly about freedom of trade, and increasingly the automation of practically everything making things cheaper and more available to all.
Trump is definitely ignorant about most things, and is probably of average intelligence. But he is very aware that his base (as such a term is rarely as well deserved) can be worried about immigrants whilst in many cases being second or third gen themselves and vote for a man who has twice married one. But for them it seems "foreigners" is no way as near as important as skin colour - I imagine there'd be no concern about thousands if not millions of white Western Europeans - as long as they were wealthy - coming over. If having a very limited amount of immigration allows Americans to delude themselves that this is decent, then so be it.
Wealth disparity is increasing rapidly, and movement of people or no isn't going to alter that.
~:smoking:
Gilrandir
11-08-2018, 11:33
Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.
So those guys from Honduras that are heading for the US have already paid taxes to the IRS?
I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.
I suppose, if you put it like that yes
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 12:26
I suppose, if you put it like that yes
So what do you think of immigration to the UK from within the EU? The relevant government departments say that these intra-EU immigrants pay several billion more in taxes than they take out, various job markets rely heavily on them as UK-born people don't tend to take these jobs (eg. social care), and they don't tend to cause more problems than your average immigrant group. Would it be a good idea to encourage this group, and a bad idea to block it?
So what do you think of immigration to the UK from within the EU? The relevant government departments say that these intra-EU immigrants pay several billion more in taxes than they take out, various job markets rely heavily on them as UK-born people don't tend to take these jobs (eg. social care), and they don't tend to cause more problems than your average immigrant group. Would it be a good idea to encourage this group, and a bad idea to block it?
Why should I have any problems with that, and why do you make it an issue
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 13:18
Why should I have any problems with that, and why do you make it an issue
Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?
So inscriptions are used instead of laws?
Citizens of a country (via taxes) finance the needs of their own country.
If the laws are suppsed to reflect a country's culture and art (I count a landmark statue as art) is an expression of that culture, then how do you explain the difference between the culture and the laws? Or has the US simply had a change in culture? Is the statue not representative at all? Is it normal for you to have inscriptions that suggest unlawful behavior on publically funded and maintained landmarks?
You also didn't answer how you arrive at that conclusion, that was the most important question. How does foreign aid figure into your description and why do so many countries accept and care for refugees if that is not what their citizens pay for? Your explanation is insufficient.
Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here
The US and the Netherlands probably don't exactly treat immigrants the same way in every aspect. He also said undocumented immigrants, since when do those live in immigrant centres? Or do you mean predominantly immigrant neighborhoods?
Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?
The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go there
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 17:11
The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go there
Do you have any evidence that "The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future"? Or is it part of your general pattern of unsubstantiated BS?
But back to the previous point. Should the UK remain within the single market? After all, it does not necessitate being part of the EU polity. But it does require acceptance of the four pillars, which the UK leavers object to, with the most important pillar, according to said leavers, being freedom of movement of labour. Are the UK leavers wrong to point to immigration as the biggest problem? After all, according to your metrics, said labour net contributes to the UK, going by the things that you complain about immigrants. Should arguments for Brexit discount intra-EU immigration as a problem? I'd like you to answer this last question, rather than go on your usual unsubstantiated BS rhetoric as you usually do (see the above promise about imminent Nexit for an example).
rory_20_uk
11-08-2018, 17:33
The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go there
I'd probably be happier about being ruled from Berlin than Brussels...
It seems Brexit is turning into a side-show compared to the Italian Question (i.e. which idiot let them into the Euro?) and the AfD resurgence.
~:smoking:
Do you have any evidence that "The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future"? Or is it part of your general pattern of unsubstantiated BS?
But back to the previous point. Should the UK remain within the single market? After all, it does not necessitate being part of the EU polity. But it does require acceptance of the four pillars, which the UK leavers object to, with the most important pillar, according to said leavers, being freedom of movement of labour. Are the UK leavers wrong to point to immigration as the biggest problem? After all, according to your metrics, said labour net contributes to the UK, going by the things that you complain about immigrants. Should arguments for Brexit discount intra-EU immigration as a problem? I'd like you to answer this last question, rather than go on your usual unsubstantiated BS rhetoric as you usually do (see the above promise about imminent Nexit for an example).
Nexit is not imminent, but hiiiiiiighly eusceptic parties (PVV and FvD) are steadily climbing.
For the lols, leader of FvD is a bit of a dandy https://www.ad.nl/show/thierry-baudet-verbaast-met-pikante-foto-op-instagram~a79ce9027/ I find it hilarious really, it isn't excacrly diginified but lololol. Really smart guy who does illy things
bonuspic https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1310&bih=697&ei=u3HkW9mHOM7HrgTvnLWoAg&q=thierry+piano&oq=thierry+piano&gs_l=img.3..0j0i8i30k1l4.1650.8744.0.9640.14.14.0.0.0.0.349.1258.10j2j0j1.13.0....0...1ac.1.64.img.. 1.13.1253.0..35i39k1j0i30k1.0.FpqzI_vkapw#imgrc=R47mmcsW_ySUJM:
All in all, a brexit and a nexit would make us more poweful than the whole EU combined, and we have very good reasons to have a bromance
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 18:52
Nexit is not imminent, but hiiiiiiighly eusceptic parties (PVV and FvD) are steadily climbing.
For the lols, leader of FvD is a bit of a dandy https://www.ad.nl/show/thierry-baudet-verbaast-met-pikante-foto-op-instagram~a79ce9027/ I find it hilarious really, it isn't excacrly diginified but lololol. Really smart guy who does illy things
bonuspic https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1310&bih=697&ei=u3HkW9mHOM7HrgTvnLWoAg&q=thierry+piano&oq=thierry+piano&gs_l=img.3..0j0i8i30k1l4.1650.8744.0.9640.14.14.0.0.0.0.349.1258.10j2j0j1.13.0....0...1ac.1.64.img.. 1.13.1253.0..35i39k1j0i30k1.0.FpqzI_vkapw#imgrc=R47mmcsW_ySUJM:
All in all, a brexit and a nexit would make us more poweful than the whole EU combined, and we have very good reasons to have a bromance
Once again, I'll ask you about the issue of intra-EU immigration as the primary reason for Brexit. You complained about how immigrants cause trouble and how they cost the state in services. Since intra-EU immigrants do not cause appreciably more trouble than other groups of immigrants within the UK, and they contribute more in taxes than they cost in state services, does this mean that, by your metrics, intra-EU immigration should be invalid as an argument for Brexit? Do you agree with Leavers that intra-EU immigration is the most important reason for Brexit, given the above facts, and your above complaints about immigrants?
BTW, I don't want your views on Dutch politics; I don't care. I'd like your view on Brexit, given your views above as I've highlighted. Are you going to answer my question on Brexit and immigration?
Furunculus
11-08-2018, 20:52
Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?
Not according to ashcroft exit poll.
And even then the distant second place was immigration [and] security.
Lots of studies since have concluded even then that much of the angst over immigration was due to a perceived lack of control.
Once again, I'll ask you about the issue of intra-EU immigration as the primary reason for Brexit. You complained about how immigrants cause trouble and how they cost the state in services. Since intra-EU immigrants do not cause appreciably more trouble than other groups of immigrants within the UK, and they contribute more in taxes than they cost in state services, does this mean that, by your metrics, intra-EU immigration should be invalid as an argument for Brexit? Do you agree with Leavers that intra-EU immigration is the most important reason for Brexit, given the above facts, and your above complaints about immigrants?
BTW, I don't want your views on Dutch politics; I don't care. I'd like your view on Brexit, given your views above as I've highlighted. Are you going to answer my question on Brexit and immigration?
Thanks for not caring we will get alng fine. As for Brexit, brits just dislike meddling, so do we
Pannonian
11-08-2018, 21:39
Thanks for not caring we will get alng fine. As for Brexit, brits just dislike meddling, so do we
Are you going to answer the question about Brexit and immigration? You stated your rules for assessing whether immigrants are harmful or not, and you agreed that my description of an immigrant group does not sound harmful. Yet when I reveal that I'm talking about intra-EU immigrants and Brexit, you refuse to confirm that the Brexit argument against intra-EU immigrants is wrong. Can you confirm how you judge the positive and negative impact of immigrants, as stated in post 204?
Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here
You then agreed that you'd be in favour of the immigrant group I described.
I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.
I suppose, if you put it like that yes
I was describing intra-EU immigrants in the UK. Are you still in favour of this immigrant group? If so, do you think that UK leavers are wrong in prioritising stopping these immigrants? Is the anti-intra-EU immigrant Brexit argument invalid?
So those guys from Honduras that are heading for the US have already paid taxes to the IRS?
They will pay taxes once they get settled in the US and start working.
Montmorency
11-09-2018, 00:06
I agree that most people are decent when it comes to those that they care about, and this quickly drops the further away they get - since Christmas is a time to shower one's children with expensive gifts, not help people starving elsewhere.
Immigration to improve the lives of the multitudes is as short term as giving food to someone and saying "problem solved!" First off, the West is struggling with taking on a minute fraction of the potential numbers; those helped are often the ones most able to travel, not the ones most in need. Secondly, the birth rate in these countries means that all the people leaving creates a temporary reduction in population at best. It solves nothing.
People generally are OK with immigrants that assimilate. It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are. Ethnicity, religion and especially culture create divides. And two out of the three can alter to shift to their new reality - and the third decreases with inter-generational breeding.
What were the improvements of the last century? That the USA finally decided to stop treating people of African descent as third class citizens and upgraded them to second class? The limited immigration allowed to the west? Globally, I think it likely that freedom of movement was theoretically better in the British Empire (no need to curtail it - who could afford it?) Improvements have been mainly about freedom of trade, and increasingly the automation of practically everything making things cheaper and more available to all.
Trump is definitely ignorant about most things, and is probably of average intelligence. But he is very aware that his base (as such a term is rarely as well deserved) can be worried about immigrants whilst in many cases being second or third gen themselves and vote for a man who has twice married one. But for them it seems "foreigners" is no way as near as important as skin colour - I imagine there'd be no concern about thousands if not millions of white Western Europeans - as long as they were wealthy - coming over. If having a very limited amount of immigration allows Americans to delude themselves that this is decent, then so be it.
Wealth disparity is increasing rapidly, and movement of people or no isn't going to alter that.
~:smoking:
I didn't offer immigration as a magical solution to a bevy of problems, but as an independently worthwhile practice that has more benefits than costs. The extent to which Western countries have trouble dealing with immigrants is the extent to which (aside from generically, "adjustment pains") Western countries are failing to satisfy the yearnings of natives for their own comfort and stability. Partial aside: it is said that Trump voters in the US and Bolsonaro voters in Brazil were more likely to be higher-income and economically secure. On the other hand, it's only relative because in today's world you can't truly be secure without net worth in the 8-figures. Hence the applicability of the "99%" slogan despite its internal subcategories.
In speaking about the last century, you sound like one of those especially cynical and bitter old-school Marxists, funnily enough. 'There isn't perfect equality yet! Where's the revolution? It's all shite, isn't it? Curse those do-nothing liberal wastrels.' Life really has got better for billions overall in crucial respects, and we do have the means to continue expanding and even guaranteeing a way of life if we're ambitious. Without assigning valence or causality, we also see the moral baseline has at least changed. Casual violence and callousness are on the downswing, and people of different races and genders are increasingly able to share mindsets.
Less tangibly, in our generation for perhaps the very first time in world history there is a global culture that allows almost any two human beings from almost anywhere to communicate and share symbols and practices on at least a basic level. This has never been possible before. Bigger than Hellenistic culture, broader than the Bible or Quran. If the trend towards national fragmentation, insularization, and overwhelming multiplication of media follows, we may also end up being the last generation to participate in this wonderful moment where 6 people, one from every continent, whether all English-proficient or none, can converse in shared pop culture formulas and tropes. I hope it isn't so.
It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are.
Are you sure? That's a salient attribute of racism and xenophobia. Group hatred typically allows special exceptions for "the good ones" that an ingroup member may know and like, while reducing the rest to a monolith. That's just the point I was making to Fragony, trying to get him to reconsider all the refugees he has never met and harshly dismisses in light of those he has personally met and befriended.
They will pay taxes once they get settled in the US and start working.
Heh, how do you pay taxes in a country you're not even in yet? I suppose you could advocate a libertarian-model "entrance fee", but then paid citizenship isn't something I look favorably on.
That was superbly written Monty, I look different at things but that's ok, well done
Gilrandir
11-09-2018, 06:09
If the laws are suppsed to reflect a country's culture and art (I count a landmark statue as art) is an expression of that culture, then how do you explain the difference between the culture and the laws? Or has the US simply had a change in culture? Is the statue not representative at all? Is it normal for you to have inscriptions that suggest unlawful behavior on publically funded and maintained landmarks?
Law and culture don't fit perfectly. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difference and anything that appeared in culture would acquire the status of a law. Consider the Prohibition (the culture of consuming alcohol vs the law that forbids it). Or prostitution, which is culturally tolerated in many countries, but is illegal in some and legal in others.
Incsriptions on monuments are romantic visions from the past, a wishful thinking. Otherwise one wouldn't need any documents for coming and settling in the US. Just the admission of being tempest-tossed, poor and homeless.
You also didn't answer how you arrive at that conclusion, that was the most important question. How does foreign aid figure into your description and why do so many countries accept and care for refugees if that is not what their citizens pay for? Your explanation is insufficient.
Simple logic. If I pay taxes in Country A, they are supposed to improve the life for the citizens of Country A. Of course, the ultimate decision lies with the government of Country A which is apportioned with the authority to direct taxes wherever they think appropriate.
Law and culture don't fit perfectly. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difference and anything that appeared in culture would acquire the status of a law. Consider the Prohibition (the culture of consuming alcohol vs the law that forbids it). Or prostitution, which is culturally tolerated in many countries, but is illegal in some and legal in others.
Incsriptions on monuments are romantic visions from the past, a wishful thinking. Otherwise one wouldn't need any documents for coming and settling in the US. Just the admission of being tempest-tossed, poor and homeless.
The prohibition didn't hold because the culture was too strong. And the statue of liberty was one of the biggest symbols of the US until recently when it was apparently replaced by images of walls and barbed wire fences. The requirement of documents could indeed be the first indicator of a shift in laws reflecting cultural changes, no?
Simple logic. If I pay taxes in Country A, they are supposed to improve the life for the citizens of Country A. Of course, the ultimate decision lies with the government of Country A which is apportioned with the authority to direct taxes wherever they think appropriate.
What if the government in country A is not interested in demanding taxes and nothing is improved as a result? Why do so many citizens complain about taxes if they're supposed to improve their lives?
Gilrandir
11-09-2018, 14:52
The prohibition didn't hold because the culture was too strong.
The culture or the financial considerations?
And the statue of liberty was one of the biggest symbols of the US until recently when it was apparently replaced by images of walls and barbed wire fences. The requirement of documents could indeed be the first indicator of a shift in laws reflecting cultural changes, no?
Do you call the inscription on a monument a document? And changing laws may take longer time than changing culture (see the example of prostitution above).
What if the government in country A is not interested in demanding taxes and nothing is improved as a result?
If the government is not intersted in improving the lives of citizens it is likely to be replaced by the one which is (unless it is a totalitarian one which may last indefinitely).
Why do so many citizens complain about taxes if they're supposed to improve their lives?
Perhaps they are not sure the taxes they pay are directed to improvement their lives. And, secondly, people are just fond of complaining. It is especially true about Ukrainians.
It is especially true about Ukrainians.
Nonono, now I got you, it's especially true of Germans!
Gilrandir
11-10-2018, 16:26
Nonono, now I got you, it's especially true of Germans!
I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.
I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.
Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused, the EU is holding back our advances in agriculture, fishing and just about everything really. The EU is a burden for a high-tech minded country like the Netherlands, but countries like France who never innovate have a say and they are much more powerful in the EU. We must leave.
I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.
Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused
This leads us tright back to the topic: The future of Europe is complaining about how others claim they were better at complaining. :clown:
This leads us tright back to the topic: The future of Europe is complaining about how others claim they were better at complaining. :clown:
Well there is plenty to complain about, Juncker is a notorious drunk, his second Timmermans (who speeidly got promoted after the M17 attack) is so fat that he can barely move. Nice of Timmermans that he can speak 6 languages, so do I but nobody asks me anthing. They are useless, the whole EU is an ambarresement to all, what started as a free trade-zone became a political comfort-zone for idiots. I think it is only a matter of time that the Netherlands leaves as well, that is probably wisfful thinking but the EU isn't really liked by anyone
Gilrandir
11-10-2018, 21:29
Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused, the EU is holding back our advances in agriculture, fishing and just about everything really. The EU is a burden for a high-tech minded country like the Netherlands, but countries like France who never innovate have a say and they are much more powerful in the EU. We must leave.
Is there any topic Fragony can't turn into an anti-EU rant?
Is there any topic Fragony can't turn into an anti-EU rant?
Well the topic is about the EU, and like a lot of Dutchies I do not apreciate the EU, not in it's current form and certainly not with the people running it, it is a sick lobbycracy
Well the topic is about the EU, and like a lot of Dutchies I do not apreciate the EU, not in it's current form and certainly not with the people running it, it is a sick lobbycracy
The funny part is that it's both a lobbycracy as well as our best chance to avoid a lobbycracy. Look at all the countries turning right wing, they turn even more to corporate interests than the EU. In Germany, the car industry is officially sanctioned to lie to its customers and arms exports cannot be stopped because of the lobby interests, etc.
In Poland the far right government loves their home country so much that they want to chop down one of the oldest forests in Europe for short-term profit. Oh and in Austria they started by removing worker protections so the workers can be forced to work longer for their corporate overlords.
I would take these accusations a lot more seriously if the same people didn't usually overlook the far worse lobbying that goes on on a national level.
The funny part is that it's both a lobbycracy as well as our best chance to avoid a lobbycracy. Look at all the countries turning right wing, they turn even more to corporate interests than the EU. In Germany, the car industry is officially sanctioned to lie to its customers and arms exports cannot be stopped because of the lobby interests, etc.
In Poland the far right government loves their home country so much that they want to chop down one of the oldest forests in Europe for short-term profit. Oh and in Austria they started by removing worker protections so the workers can be forced to work longer for their corporate overlords.
I would take these accusations a lot more seriously if the same people didn't usually overlook the far worse lobbying that goes on on a national level.
What does that have to do with me. I do not even know people people who call themselve rightist, my buds are leftist or a apolitical, we talk about. What you discribe is a perverion that shouldn be attributed to anyone but those involved, that is true for more things though
Furunculus
11-25-2018, 11:32
So, dodging the usual virtue-signalling slogans of eu debate, what do people think of the New Hanseatic League?
Fundamentally, a response to brexit and the loss of the super-sized advocate for a market-liberal driven EU.
Oddly bisecting the usual Franco-German divide of rule of:
1. One is a German driven Europe of rules. It will be business oriented, and Greece will come to be the template of a ‘wide’ Europe with no sense of common solidarity. This fractious stasis will nevertheless require us to integrate to fight for oxygen in a low adaptability / low growth bloc. Member nations might eventually come to engineer out some of the imperfections of Maastricht and Lisbon, but it will be an antagonistic and inward looking bloc.
2. The second is the French/Italian European people. It will result from peripheral Eurozone members choosing to leave monetary union, and accession states simply refusing to join. In doing this, the six founding members will recognise the common solidarity necessary to legitimise a transfer union at the core of Europe. A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate, this EU would be able to focus on more than zero-sum maneuvering.
In seeking an EU of rules but with some of the elements of solidarity necessary to make the Euro work:
https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/why-new-hanseatic-league-will-not-be-enough
Does this fit YOUR vision of how the EU should evolve?
Wow Paris, I suspect that there many antifacsts(lol) there doing the wreckage that's what they do whenever they can, in Germany the hunt on immigrants was also a fluke
Yes, since the right is cheering on a movement that suddenly turned violent in a way the right doesn't like, it has to be infiltrated by the antifa.
Who would've thought that a movement against higher prices could have lefitst elements in it?
Furunculus
12-02-2018, 23:30
surely this is at least somewhat interesting?
So, dodging the usual virtue-signalling slogans of eu debate, what do people think of the New Hanseatic League?
Fundamentally, a response to brexit and the loss of the super-sized advocate for a market-liberal driven EU.
Oddly bisecting the usual Franco-German divide of rule of:
1. One is a German driven Europe of rules. It will be business oriented, and Greece will come to be the template of a ‘wide’ Europe with no sense of common solidarity. This fractious stasis will nevertheless require us to integrate to fight for oxygen in a low adaptability / low growth bloc. Member nations might eventually come to engineer out some of the imperfections of Maastricht and Lisbon, but it will be an antagonistic and inward looking bloc.
2. The second is the French/Italian European people. It will result from peripheral Eurozone members choosing to leave monetary union, and accession states simply refusing to join. In doing this, the six founding members will recognise the common solidarity necessary to legitimise a transfer union at the core of Europe. A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate, this EU would be able to focus on more than zero-sum maneuvering.
In seeking an EU of rules but with some of the elements of solidarity necessary to make the Euro work:
https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/why-new-hanseatic-league-will-not-be-enough
Does this fit YOUR vision of how the EU should evolve?
Yes, since the right is cheering on a movement that suddenly turned violent in a way the right doesn't like, it has to be infiltrated by the antifa.
Who would've thought that a movement against higher prices could have lefitst elements in it?
That turned out to be fake-news, they used years old imagery of a neo-nazi march to make peaceful protest of normal people look bad. Not classy at all
As for Paris, I suspect it, we will see, it's a common tactic
As for Paris, I suspect it, we will see, it's a common tactic
Of course it's a common tactic, just like the common tactic of right wingers pretending to be antifa because leftist treehuggers would never be aggressive.
It's basically a false flag operation disguised as a false flag operation, it's so obvious.
Of course it's a common tactic, just like the common tactic of right wingers pretending to be antifa because leftist treehuggers would never be aggressive.
It's basically a false flag operation disguised as a false flag operation, it's so obvious.
Never heard of such a thing. Right wing/Left wing blabla, I don't like any of them.
Montmorency
12-06-2018, 05:33
I just learned (https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-refugee-crisis-as-civil-liberties-crisis/) that in response to the refugee crisis Hungary has passed a law that permits warrantless search of homes that are suspected of harboring refugees.
2. Hungary’s “Emergency” Legislation. — The Syrian refugee crisis, which had been ongoing for several years as a result of the protracted civil war in that country, first affected Europe in a significant way during the summer and early fall months of 2015. Hungary, with its strategic position on the eastern frontier of Europe, was one of the countries most heavily affected by the dramatic influx of new arrivals in the early stages of the crisis. Unique among European countries, however, Hungary pursued extraordinarily aggressive emergency measures to prevent new arrivals practically at the outset of the crisis.
The first stage of Hungary’s response involved the construction of a fence around portions of its border. The Hungarian Parliament enacted legislative measures aimed at further deterring refugee arrivals as the second stage of its response. These measures included a raft of different provisions aimed at arriving refugees, including draconian punishments for damaging the newly erected border fence and for entering the country at nondesignated areas. The law also allowed for declaration of a state of emergency in perpetuity under certain conditions.
The legislative measures were not aimed solely at foreign arrivals: An element of the law would also focus on domestic citizens. Specifically, the law gave police the power to search the homes of Hungarian citizens suspected of harboring refugees without a warrant. As initially drafted, the law granted this power explicitly, but this provision was eventually removed after it threatened legislative support for the measure as a whole. However, as pointed out during floor debate, this did not in fact change the nature of the powers police would be granted: Because the law criminalized unauthorized refugee entries and presence, police who suspected a household of harboring refugees could still enter without a warrant.
Cool cool cool cool cool. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDcbpFimUc8) Definitely sounds like something no one would dream of proposing in the States (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/border-patrol-warrantless-searches-often-unconstitutional/), right?
*nervously waves Nazismus wand*
Furunculus
01-05-2019, 10:24
for interest:
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/HJS-2019-Audit-of-Geopolitical-Capability-Report-web.pdf
Pannonian
01-05-2019, 12:30
for interest:
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/HJS-2019-Audit-of-Geopolitical-Capability-Report-web.pdf
Who is the Global Britain Programme (the author)?
The Global Britain Programme is a research programme within the Henry Jackson Society. (https://henryjacksonsociety.org/global-britain-programme/)
Who is the Henry Jackson Society?
The Henry Jackson Society is a neoconservative British foreign policy think tank. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society)
I didn't even know that neoconservatism was still a going concern these days. Apparently there are still fans.
Furunculus
01-05-2019, 16:27
Rofl, did you forget to add the tag "neoliberal" to the rest of the invective directed at the euthor?
Play the ball, not the man.
As an aside, James Rogers begun his career as an EU foreign policy analyst.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.