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
Printable View
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?
surely this is at least somewhat interesting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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 allQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I just learned that in response to the refugee crisis Hungary has passed a law that permits warrantless search of homes that are suspected of harboring refugees.
Cool cool cool cool cool. Definitely sounds like something no one would dream of proposing in the States, right?Quote:
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.
*nervously waves Nazismus wand*
for interest:
https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-c...Report-web.pdf
Who is the Global Britain Programme (the author)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
The Global Britain Programme is a research programme within the Henry Jackson Society.
Who is the Henry Jackson Society?
The Henry Jackson Society is a neoconservative British foreign policy think tank.
I didn't even know that neoconservatism was still a going concern these days. Apparently there are still fans.
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.
That was the strategy of Leave. Throw enough lies around, and if Remain stick to playing the ball, there is never enough time to refute all the lies (many of which, like the 350m for the NHS promise, have some kind of weaselly loophole to excuse the liars), which means enough of them circulate. I haven't said neoliberal because I was just quoting what the wiki article said, and neoconservative is the description they use. In case people have forgotten what neoconservatism is, look up Project For a New American Century, the think tank that sent the US and UK into Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Right, so show me the lies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Try the 350m per week for the NHS claim, which was disowned after the referendum, with the explanation that it was an aspiration, not a promise. There's the claim that Turkey was about to enter the EU. Which they were never close to, and even if they were, we could always veto it. Was that the truth too? What about the recent claim from the trade minister that the EU-Japan trade deal will boost UK exports by billions? What about the same idiot's claim that the UK-EU trade deal will be the easiest in the world to negotiate? What about the promise that a 52-48 result would not be the end of the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I'd like some truth about the implementation of Brexit as well. Such as the process behind engaging Seaborne when the company has no assets and no experience, yet was given a 14m contract. The Times has also reported that latest cabinet discussions suggest that 30k troops will need to be ready to prepare for Brexit, not 3k as was previously thought to be the case, based on the experience of the 2001 fuel protests (an incident that I've cited as an example of the problems that we'll be facing, but was either dismissed or ignored by you and other Brexiters). Why is such a deployment necessary, and does your document address the issues behind the necessity of such a deployment? NB. this isn't a think tank, whose purpose is to peddle fantasies, producing these plans. It's the government.
At what point do we stop trying to focus on the fine detail, and conclude that the whole thing is a fundamentally bad idea?
No.
No, no, no.
Tell me about the lies of this piece that allows you to write it off without any critique of the methodology.
Boys, look, I am starting up a microbrewery and to be honest the price of hops is killing me. Californian's just love these 150 IBU IPAs, it's disgusting but that's the market for you.
Starting March 29th, I am buying up all those quality German hops that no longer have a destination to go to at discount prices. Please don't sign May's deal, otherwise it's gonna screw up my profit margins.
Will you summarise it, or highlight the salient points? Given the track record of Brexiteers, I'm not too hopeful there's anything worth bothering with. Eg. your and their bright idea of following the Singapore model as an economy. Except that Singapore is a city with very little hinterland, and doing as you say would result in the loss of our agricultural industry. Which you said you were fine with, but which immediately makes it unacceptable to me and probably a sizeable majority of the UK population. And if you think I should have to read all of it myself; well, I've cited and summarised the testimony of Mr Trucker, showing how government policy has been influenced by it, and you still say that you can't be bothered to listen to it or read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And will you address the latest news on the government's implementation of Brexit? This isn't a dream peddled by a think tank, that can invent all kinds of stuff and dare you to prove them wrong. It's reportage of what the government is actually doing or planning about this thing you voted for.
You don't need hops. Just use some cheap artificial preservatives and the US trade deal will require us to accept it. Come to think of it, you don't need the other traditional ingredients either. Mix industrial alcohol with some flavourings, and you're good to go. Give it some traditional English name for marketing here as well, as the EU will no longer be protecting our regional brands.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
There is an executive summary, put on your big boy pants and try reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
If you get to any difficult words let me know, and I'll help.
Have you listened to Mr Trucker's testimony yet? The government have already written policy in response to it. Do you still think it is too insignificant to take notice of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And again, what do you think of the latest news of the government's implementation of Brexit? It's not think tank fantasy, but actual news of what the government is actually doing.
Well,, I gave it a go, which is more than can be said for you and Mr Trucker. This early sentence didn't augur well: "Building on the “Audit of Geopolitical Capability” from September 2017", as it builds on something that must have some kind of credibility in order for this update to have any. Googling that document mainly returns reports of this document, with the headline claim that the UK is 2nd most powerful country in the world by its reckoning, which immediately sets off BS alarms. Still, I went a bit further, and looked at the methodology, as you suggested. The study is broken down into various areas. A look at these includes a number of areas where experts in these fields have been forthright on how Brexit damages them (the latest, universities). So I'd like you to explain why I should overlook their expert opinions in favour of this think tank document whose headline conclusion screams BS to me.
One thing tickled me though. In order to seem scientific and everything, the study presents its findings on stylised maps with metrics on the edge and how high the UK rates. The list of countries thus studied is quite exhaustive, but there are still some gaps. To help fill these gaps, here's one for Ousmane Dembele. Lionel Messi. Cristiano Ronaldo vs Arjen Robben. I'm sure there are others.
doesn't fit the narrative. very troubling i know.
he's only been in front of parliamentary committees half a dozen times, wrong type of expert.
China is graded to have "cultural prestige" about par with Saudi Arabia? Tosh. Cultural prestige is not a function of "freedom to create" (the weightiest component of the instrument). China is probably in the top 20 or even 10 for soft power, certainly above - what the hell does KSA even have, holy cities?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
(I didn't read anything, just glanced at one of the tables.)
Real or satire?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You're missing the point. The metrics that the study cites, such as education, trade, etc. are areas that the expert opinions are almost unanimous on that Brexit is bad. And the conclusion that the UK is 2nd in the world? Presumably the US is top, which puts us above China. And the study looks at the EU countries in isolation, but as we've seen from the exit negotiations, the EU acts as a bloc. And even so, this would still put us ahead of Germany. And it puts us ahead of Japan, which has a far higher GDP than us, twice the population, better education, better productivity, greater industrialisation, etc. Is this because soft power puts us ahead? But look at another of the arguments put forward: that Nigeria should replace the EU, citing its population and economy. But isn't Japan far ahead of us by these metrics? If we are ahead of Japan by other metrics, how does that put Nigeria ahead of the EU? Especially as the EU is far ahead on just about every metric, and has a greater population to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And those maps that are supposed to be impressive: I know what they are. They're called football radars, and are used to analyse football players. They are used because tables and bar charts are boring. Their proof of concept is how they can demonstrate a common sense fact: that Leo Messi is far better than anyone else. They're not trusted for anything other than a very broad overview, and they have limitations based on the metrics being used. Your chosen metrics are dodgy based on how experts in these fields view your arguments, and unlike football radars, they do not demonstrate a common sense fact as proof of concept. Choose irrelevant metrics, and Harry Maguire is a better player than Leo Messi. Which he's not, and any study that claims it forfeits credibility. Even more so when the arguments within are applied inconsistently to produce far out claims.
If this is supposed to be your decisive card in showing how your argument prevails, it's been just as much a waste of time as I'd anticipated just by looking at who produced it. Are you going to listen to Mr Trucker's testimony, now that I've read the rubbish that you've told me to read?
Oh hang on. The replacement of the EU with Nigeria isn't a political conclusion, but a condition of the study, because
Is the EU not an economic bloc? Has the EU not acted as a political bloc wrt the UK during the exit negotiations? Is this a way to remove the EU from consideration because the EU is too powerful to fit into the chosen narrative?Quote:
As the Eu is not a country, and insofar as there is insufficient data to ascertain its geopolitical
capability – the sum of its parts would not be representative of its own performance – it has
been excluded from the Audit. Instead, nigeria has been included to provide better
representation of Africa. Indeed, nigeria is now the largest economy in Africa, as well as the
continent’s most populous country. 32 nigeria is also expected to increase markedly in
economic weight and population over the coming half-century, with perhaps as many as 410
million citizens by 2050, and its economy producing more in terms of nominal Gross Domestic
Product than Italy.
One of the greatest acts of Chinese soft power is its investment in 3rd world countries with infrastructure that they can't pay for, which the Chinese eventually take over on default. Given my interests, Pakistan is a pretty detailed example of the Chinese MO, and Pakistanis (or at least their middle class) aren't happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Really? I consider that a liability. paying millions for infrastructure which you do not directly control. What is to stop a country from nationalizing it? Are they going to try the same approach the US and British did in the middle east in response to secular, socialist, pan-arabism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Closer to the latter. Unfortunately, I know in my heart that when no deal happens, the EU will likely pay full price to the farmers for any cancelled UK shipments and then torch the supply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Without foreign support, a country like Sri Lanka or Zambia practicing maximum defiance against Chinese neocolonialism is going to have some hard times in short order. Whether China or non-national organizations, intsoc is necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
These contracts are long-term, aren't they? Maybe the EU farmers have begun shifting buyers by now?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
*CaliforniansQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I agree with the rest though.
Most of the workers are Chinese. The elite get kickbacks, the Chinese get the infrastructure. See the British in India.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Key point is without foreign support. We can be that support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
If the contracts are long term they were written well before the Brexit vote, and I don't see how you wouldn't be obligated to fulfill the terms of the contract up until the moment of Brexit.Quote:
These contracts are long-term, aren't they? Maybe the EU farmers have begun shifting buyers by now?
I am expected to deliver grain shipment on March 30th, and I don't prepare that shipment because of Brexit but suddenly a deal is signed at the last moment and business continues as usual, am I not violating the contract?
Can you even begin to shift buyers and make commitments before March 29th? No one knows the outcome yet.
boo, autocorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Are those workers permanent? Are there Chinese residents across Africa now maintaining and operating it, or is it the local populace doing the day to day maintenance and operations? Makes a big difference between the legal ownership and the de facto ownership if we are talking about hardball politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not in our contemporary disposition. We can't outcolonialize or outcorrupt China, and we certainly shouldn't try. Western corps have historically been unleashed to this purpose already of course, but they're more enemy than servant of "free peoples".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The problem is I don't know anything about agricultural markets, but to some extent I imagine Brexit has been priced in starting 2.5 years ago. That is, the process begins with the vote result, not with the deadline.
Here's one report on a WTO/no-deal scenario I found, though just from a glance I can't tell if it describes the actual micro conduct of agribusiness contracts and financials: EU - UK agricultural trade: state of play and possible impacts of Brexit
Quote:
This report analyzes current UK-EU27 agri-food trade, and quantifies the
impacts of a return to WTO rules after Brexit. Agri-food trade is likely to
decrease steeply, especially for meat and dairy sectors. However, there
might be an opportunity for an increase in production in a reduced
number of European sectors, such as red meat, cattle or wheat, to
replace imports from the UK. More generally, Ireland is likely to be the
most negatively impacted country and deserves particular attention
during the Brexit process
Quote:
The relationship between the UK and the EU27 is characterized by a marked
dissymmetry. The EU27, as a whole, is a large market (more than 445 million
inhabitants and a GDP of USD 13.8 thousand billion in 2016), while the UK is relatively
smaller (a population of 65.6 million people and a GDP of USD 2.6 thousand billion).
Thus, the EU27 represents a large market and outlet for UK exporters, while the UK is,
in comparison, a small market for EU27 (even if it represents the main export
destination of some agri-food sectors in given EU27 countries). For these reasons,
macroeconomic impacts on the UK are significantly larger (e.g. -2.3% in GDP) than for
EU27 (-0.3%). Nevertheless, the UK is currently the second largest EU28 country and
is highly integrated with the EU27 in terms of trade and value chains. As a result, all
the EU27 countries will be negatively affected by Brexit, the magnitude of the impact
increasing with economic proximity to the UK. Ireland in particular (-3.4% in GDP,
USD -63.4 billion), and to a much lesser extent Belgium and Luxembourg (-0.7%) and
the Netherlands (-0.5%), are the most affected countries.
Quote:
Agri-food products are less traded than manufactured ones and contribute less in total
GDP. They will face however the largest increases in trade protection, both in terms of
tariffs and non-tariff measures. Agri-food exports of the EU27 to the UK will decrease
by USD 34 billion (62%) and imports by USD 19 billion (with the same relative
decrease, 62%).
Quote:
Trade diversion will take place; part of the decrease in exports to the UK will be
compensated by an increase in intra-EU27 trade (+1%) as well as in exports to third
countries (+0.9%). This is partly explained by a loss of UK’s competitiveness, due to
higher prices of imported intermediary consumptions. In the end, agri-food exports of
the EU27 to the world will decrease by 4.1% (USD -27 billion). The most affected
sectors (in value terms) are processed food (USD -10.5 billion, -4.7%),1 which is also
the most exported (33% of EU27 agri-food exports), white meat (USD -5.2 billion, -
10.5%) and dairy (USD -4.6 billion, -7%). The Netherlands (USD -6.7 billion, -66%),
Ireland (USD -6.5 billion, -71%) and France (USD -4.7 billion, -51%) undergo the
largest drops in exports.
Quote:
Agri-food production and value added are also affected by trade with other countries
as well as domestic demand. The relative magnitude of each of these effects
(bilateral trade with the UK, trade with third countries and domestic demand) varies across
countries and sectors and determines Brexit’s impact heterogeneity.
In the UK, agrifood value-added increases (+2%), mainly because local production partially
substitutes imports from the EU27. This takes place at consumers expense since
consumption prices increase by 4%. In the EU27 as a whole, agri-food value-added
decreases by 0.8%; the increase in exports to third countries and in intra-EU trade do
not compensate for the loss of exports to UK. Even if in all EU27 countries, overall
agri-food value-added decreases, some sectors like Red meat (+2.1%) and Cattle
(+1.3%) in France gain thanks to their capacity to fulfill the domestic demand,
replacing imports from the UK. The wheat sector in France is one of the few where
value added increases (+1.7%) thanks to an increase in exports to other EU countries.
The fall in agri-food value-added is particularly large in Ireland (-16%, with a collapse
in white meat, -58%), because of the decrease in exports to UK but also to general
equilibrium effects leading to a strong decrease in domestic demand.
Hmm, UK always screwing the Irish.Quote:
• Because of its tight relationship with the UK, of all EU27 countries, Ireland is affected
the most by Brexit, and not only in agri-food sectors. In relative terms, its GDP
decreases even more than UK's GDP (-3.4% vs -2.4%). This is explained by a drop in
Irish agri-food exports to the UK and to the rest of the World, including EU27 countries
as Irish production relies heavily on imported intermediates from the UK.
But the term we're looking for is therefore "trade diversion". For EU producers who have been exporting to the UK, what is the nature of Brexit-related trade diversion? Here's a study on UK but not EU. TLDR
Articles on why EU agricultural policy (CAP) is good or bad. Articles on effect of Brexit on CAP. IDK what on the nitty gritty of how trade is executed.
That's about as much as I'm willing to work on this subject.
AFAIK yes, Chinese nationalsQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Small developing countries generally have a bad track record of trying to seize and operate technologically-reliant industry, nah?
I don't know about Africa, but in Pakistan the Pakistani (middle class) are complaining that all the higher end jobs are taken by Chinese, meaning that even "investment" has little meaning, as all the skilled jobs that build up a middle class are reserved for Chinese. Presumably it's the same in African countries as well, and anywhere else they're doing this. The last I heard is that in Kenya they were taking over port facilities that were defaulted on. And it's formal Chinese policy to build a new Silk Road on the high seas, gaining control of strategic points between China and Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
don't get me wrong, i have my own questions about the methodology:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1. it would have been valuable to include citations of research, not just total investment, as a measure to capture the quality of research. a way to excise all the valueless grievance studies, but i understand that data was difficult to capture.
2. it would have been interesting to include all the EU G20 nations as an composite to capture the 'power' of the EU. yes, you would lose the value of the minor nations, but you also have to consider the penalty induced by the poor decision making process.
but in so far as it goes, i think it is a valuable piece of work.
France is realy heating up, they are like that they are hotheads, tell me about it I had a few French girlfriends. Things look bad for Macron, and all the better for those who do not want any eu
Everybody knew this was going to happen
A US invasion to stop the country from going communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
There are countries where children are allowed to smoke because the government once dared to try and ban smoking and thereby violated the interests of international investors...
Don't underestimate the enforcement power of international capitalism as long as the investor is rich enough and not a small or medium business owner.
I'm not sure what's going to happen but the funny thing is that it all blew up in the Macron's face a few days after he said to Trump that EU will build an army to fight against US. Coincidence? I don't think so. Generally, the whole idea of EU army is far beyond bad. It's totally evil. Only people who doesn't know the last 100 years of European history can think that's a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Hmm, then I shall resume my fear of Chinese hegemony until their demographic crisis undermines their treasury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I don't think the US would care about the type of government if we are talking about a hypothetical Cold War with China for influence in Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Not sure what your focus on the treasury is, the Chinese state exists on its centrifugal force of action, which isn't reliant on mere balance sheets, just like budget deficits will never bring down the United States. It's the social conditions that matter, and those aren't favorable anywhere, let alone undergirding a fantasy of Cold War. Birth rates in the US are and have also steeply declined, and it's not merely because people are more "educated". "It's the economy, stupid."Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The post-Mao CCP state relies on concertive control and diffuse authoritarianism coupled with bread and circuses to maintain stability above a certain threshold. Obviously China has some capacity to go full totalitarian given its massive state organs, but this would be a last resort and therefore the real test of the Chinese model. Throne of bayonets and all that. In a global market capitalist society, China collapses last, after it loses control of its supply chains as the world system disintegrates. Rather than a traditional Cold War, you should be thinking in terms of a new world order that can subvert and obviate Chinese mercantilist aspirations and preserve our civilization in the long term.
Well if you want to talk about social conditions, China's debt has increased rapidly to levels on par with the US (as % of gdp) which is just a balance sheet as you say however:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
* China's GDP per capita is only 8,800ish which is below Russia. The average wealth per individual is just not at Western standards despite Western levels of debt.
* China's birth rates are below that of the United States (1.6 vs 1.8). My understanding is that by 2029 China's population will start to decline (see point below why I think US pop won't decline). By mid century, US is projected to have 20% of it's population 65+ years, while China will be at 25%. This is assuming that those numbers don't change dramatically (don't count on that).
* Despite the steady 6-7% growth for the past decade, China's economic growth will eventually cool off and attitudes in Chinese markets will shift accordingly. Likely before the big demographic transition hits. I don't think this is a particularly outrageous prediction.
* US policy towards immigration (ignoring Trump), is much more accepting and encouraged than China. I do not anticipate social conditions to change in China to point in which China becomes a more multicultural country. If Japanese society has yet to yield to corporate demands for outside labor (despite declining in total population for the past few years), I doubt China's society will either.
My thinking is in terms of policy and demographics. Debt is a metric by which the performance of government policy can be measured. The amount of debt may not matter so much, but the rate at which the debt increases and anticipation towards management of future debt does. But sure, it is just one metric among many. As long as US maintains domestic policies that keep the population stable, and relatively young we will maintain our competitiveness.
Honestly, I think as long as the United States can keep itself composed and dedicated as the liberal democracy we wish for it to be, we can wait for the cumulative effect of bad Chinese domestic policy to catch up.
Hasn't China already gone full totalitarian on the Tibetans and Uyghurs?
Premise: Population growth really doesn't matter, because the current growth paradigm - where everyone is a worker and consumer - is proving unsustainable and must shift into a subsistence paradigm. If we don't collectively accomplish this as a species, we will fall collectively as a species, and power politics become deprecated (or take a new form with new actors on a lower level). An aging population therefore matters not in terms of lost capacity, but increasing pressure on the livelihoods and expectations of average citizens, one of the many overdetermining factors among those like lack of responsive government; work stress; access to living space, medical care, education, amenities; hyperreal mass media expectations; lack of metaphysical grounding. These factors are crushing us throughout the world, right? This (increasingly less) latent desperation is for example what's behind events like the ongoing - ongoing! - Yellow Jacket movement in France.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
China has been building a tightly-bound society in a way the United States has not. Without steady commerce binding us as Americans together, the country starts to unravel, a process we can see adumbrated throughout the developed world. (The failure of African and Arab national states to even get off the ground was always the writing on the wall for this model, and should never have been The United States has no coercive totalitarian backstop to endure an apocalypse, whereas China does - to a degree. Because they've been through it, and not just once. But all I'm describing is a difference in timescale, a difference of years. A CCP attempt to occupy Han China the way Han China occupies Tibet and Xinjiang, in the context of collapsed global markets and institutions, would probably look like Khmer Rouge Cambodia before long. Social credit is a much more clever and insidious mechanism, but it does require baseline stability, which it can't engender in itself. The CCP has made sacrifices over the years after all, to marketize its economy. When we're talking introducing a totalitarian economy, we're talking a dehybridization of the economy, the biggest in the world once you remember that electronic assets are not tangible but people and things are. Even assuming they have contingencies, despite and perhaps because of better technology and infrastructure the Chinese (and other) governments today arguably have less capacity to simultaneously mobilize, suppress, and sustain their people before disappearing into unmodern cascades of raw violence and warlord anarchism. To be clear, I'm saying China has developed mechanisms to endure such challenges more effectively in the short term, but of shorter duration than was generally possible a century ago. Analogously, how long could the UK or Germany sustain a WW1-tier total mobilization economy today? A century ago the most powerful states in the world could sustain a little over 4 years before reaching the brink.
(Note that I bring up those wars because they involved total mobilization of the economy, not because I'm specifically relating the above to a war scenario between the US and China. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with war.)
Fun fact: In 1978 the Chinese government owned almost 70% of all national wealth. Today it's around 30%.
Delightful as this is, can we make it relevant to the EU's future?
Does it have one, the EU overhead is going to be in shambles, Europese as a continent Will be Just fine
Those charts, the study, or the data? If the methodology is fundamentally dodgy, then how is it irrelevant? This is the fundamental basis of Brexit. Start with false assumptions to build a false foundation. Then build on those false assumptions and false foundations with yet more lies and deception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Have you listened to Mr Trucker and read the Commons report yet? I've given your stuff a go. You've not reciprocated. Unlike your study, which uses football analytics methodology in a way not meant for use (football scouts around the world would shudder at your argument), Mr Trucker's account is an actual expert source in their specialist field, and is recognised by the government as such.
nice segway.
but as you know:
1. I was referring to chinese/american hegemony
2. You have yet to demonstrate that the methodology of the HJS paper is problematic. That you assert it to be so is inadequate.
3. Re Brexit: you could make the same claim about anything in politics, and it would still be equally irrelevant to the conduct of politics, i.e. enacting ideas
4. I'm delighted the gov't has responded to the concerns of Mr Trucker, as I indicated they should and would. As you well know, I thought I had nothing particular to learn on regulatory borders from ten minutes of youtube that I had not already gleaned from 450 pages of flexcit.
this is now just regurgitating bile on your part.
Is https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YhIrgcaaXS8 is this actualy true? Here we had Merkel's little children stab and cut throats but no beheadings. Because Sweden is Sweden everything that doesn't suit their disposia must be silenced, 1984+, but did this really happen
So you urge me to read the document you've linked to, but you refuse to reciprocate and listen to the testimony I linked to. Even though the latter is recognised to be a significant expert opinion in their specialist field, while I've managed to find flaws in the former even within a brief browse. Typical of Brexit. Do as I say, not as I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Explosion in Paris, unknown who did it. No fatalities mentioned so far.
Edit, probably a stupid accident, gasleak
Nice, one of the childless mutti's little children stab a pregnant woman, unborn child dead. So welcome wir schaffen das. When is Merkel going to be tarred and feathered
Certainly not before you provide any sources for the things you're talking about. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Is certain An Afghanistan Guy did it, woman was Polish. You can easily look it up yourselfQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Found it on Breitbart. For some reason, the source doesn't surprise me. :laugh4:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...regnant-woman/
From the story, there are a few things which stood out:Quote:
A pregnant Polish woman suffered life-threatening injuries and lost her unborn baby in a knife attack by an Afghan migrant at a hospital in Germany.
Police said an argument broke out at St. Marienwörth Hospital in Bad Kreuznach, west Germany, at around 6 p.m. on Friday, after which the 25-year-old victim was stabbed several times in the stomach.
The woman’s condition stabilised following emergency surgery but her baby died a short time after the operation, according to local media, which reported that the perpetrator surrendered himself to police shortly after the attack, after initially having fled the hospital.
On Saturday the suspect, a 25-year-old Afghan, was charged with murder, aggravated assault, and the unlawful termination of a pregnancy. He will remain in custody while police and the local public prosecutor’s office investigate the circumstances of the attack.
With the victim not yet in a condition to speak to investigators, and the suspect having so far refused to comment on the assault, police have said the motive remains unclear.
Speaking out after the attack, Alternative for Germany (AfD) MP Petr Bystron remarked that “illegal immigration is not mercy — it is murder”, noting that Germany has suffered rising crime rates since Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the country’s border to well over a million migrants in 2015.
Linking German problems with illegal immigration to the ones highlighted by President Donald Trump in North America, the populist MP told U.S. news outlet Gateway Pundit: “The simple fact is: if you are willing to break a country’s laws to get in, you are probably willing to break them again once you are in – with horrible, tragic consequences for the most vulnerable members of society.”
Globalist international media outlets, which overwhelmingly stood in praise of Mrs Merkel as she invited people from the Global South to live off taxpayers in her homeland, have attempted to downplay reports that Germany has seen an uptick in violence since receiving an unprecedented influx of migrants, claiming that crime on the whole has gone down since 2015.
But a BBC ‘fact check’ last year, which took issue with an AfD MP’s claim that there were more than 447 killings by illegal immigrants in Germany in 2017, had to admit that the migrant demographic was heavily overrepresented amongst perpetrators of the most serious crimes.
Despite people classified as “asylum applicants or civil war refugees or illegal immigrants” making up just 2 per cent of Germany’s population as a whole, this group comprised 8.5 percent of all criminal suspects in 2017, including 10.4 percent of murder suspects and 11.9 percent of sexual offence suspects, the British public broadcaster conceded.
- The perpetrator went to the Hospital with the victim.
- The perpetrator later turned themselves in to the police, after initially fleeing.
First thing this suggests is that the story is not "wild afghan refugee stabs pregnant woman just because he is an evil immigrant". There is the suggestion that the perpetrator knew the victim, since apparently they went to the hospital with her. The individual also turned himself into the police, if they are evil immigrant, wouldn't they try to flee/not be caught?
Perhaps this is a very tragic tale where the unborn child is the perpetrator's (or not) ? Perhaps there was an argument and something went horribly wrong? Clearly the perpetrator had some issues, maybe a twisted form of honour killing? Either way, this is not as simple as implied "immigrants are evil and stab pregnant women for fun".
Sounds like there is more to it and should have shut up
If you weant me to accept your point, it's a terrible idea to try and make me work for it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Besides, I may not even challenge your point, but want to read the whole story.
I did find it based on the information provided by Beskar. Apparently the two were a couple and he specifically came to visit her in that hospital. Doesn't sound like random violence, but a relationship conflict. Though that is obviously not a way to solve those. He also surrendered to police by himself shortly afterwards.
It sounds a lot like he freaked out after they talked, maybe she told him the baby is from someone else because she cheated on him, or something like that. Don't get me wrong, what he did is terrible and he should be punished. It just doesn't look like the "random islamist terrorist murderer from abroad"-story that many almost like to see because it fits their xenophobic agenda.
edit: Sorry for repeating some things Beskar already said, I looked for the source right away and didn't see the conclusions below. :bow:
You are right this was nog random violence. He should be sent away though
Here's an example of football radars used in analysis. It can easily show when players are an order of magnitude greater or lesser than another. But where there isn't such a great difference, all it does is show that players are of different styles, assuming they play in roughly the same area. And as one of the players' analyses shows, it also depends on the context, in this case the style of the team they're playing in (if the loaning team hasn't been picking the right team for their loanee to go to). And even after all that, it's just a precursor to the final, decisive judgement, which is made by an expert in the field, ie. a football scout. That report that Furunculus links to as an illustration of his beliefs misses all this.
whining and bile, still! don't you ever get bored of living on repeat?
I was willing to change my position. From not reading the report you posted, I read it and commented on it. Are you going to reciprocate and listen to Mr Trucker's testimony, which is something the government considered worthwhile enough to base policy on? Or are you only up for giving demands, without ever doing anything in return?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i will. i will do it for you. :yes:
One thing that will have a reverberating impact on the EU - the arrest of Carlos Ghosn.
Since Renault & Nissan were very well connected and the EU & Japan made a free trade zone, this will impact both the overall exports (plus & minus) but also things like Nissan not going to produce cars in the UK any more.
come again?Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Of far more signaificance:
“The unanimity rule in taxation increasingly appears as politically anachronistic, legally problematic and economically counterproductive. I am fully aware of how sensitive an issue this is, but that cannot mean that the discussion is off limits. So let’s begin this debate today.”
The words of the EU discussing the end of the national veto on tax policy.
I'm banking on the fact that UK won't leave EU - the cost is far too high, it's a total disaster so far.
Also, bit of a mistake on my part, Nissan won't produce a certain model any more - they are rethinking their operations.
Here -> https://www.theguardian.com/business...-in-sunderland
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...142818781.html
They won't immediately shut down all operations, as there is still physical and human infrastructure here for existing models. . What they will do is what they've done: move production of new models to elsewhere. As existing models come to the end of their life, there won't be any replacements, as all the new infrastructure has been set up in places where they won't suffer from the UK's post-Brexit situation. May had a meeting with Nissan execs shortly after she took power, assuring them that the UK would be a good place to continue business in. They've obviously weighed her words against her actions, and found her words to be worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Gammon says the UK is at war with the EU.
Or perhaps it has something to do with the massive drop in Diesel sales in Europe due to the scandal in Germany due to extremely lax QC. Or perhaps the new free trade agreement with the UK - this means they will get tariff-free on cars even if they're made in Japan (one of the inevitable casualties of free trade agreements which are better overall but do create some loosers).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But no. Nissan doesn't like May and therefore is moving. If they'd liked the PM they'd be building a whole new town here since personal relationships really matter that much...
~:smoking:
What new free trade agreement with the UK are you talking about? Have you been smoking Liam Fox's stash again? The new free trade agreement Japan recently signed that we benefit from was with the EU, which we are currently a member of. We will stop benefiting from that agreement on 1st April, courtesy of your vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Brexit: Government didn't offer Nissan money to stay in UK (20th January 2017)
Nissan was offered secret state aid to cope with Brexit, minister concedes (4th February 2019)
Lies and deception - that's the Brexit way.
Politicians lying??!? Say it ain't so! Something that only done by the Brexiteers, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Apologies, the EU, not the UK.
My mistake aside... you appear to ignore both the decrease of diesel and that the agreement reduces tarrifs... so Nissan might as well build them in Japan. So this is in fact due to the EU/Japan agreement.
~:smoking:
https://www.cbronline.com/news/european-commission-mob
Well that did not end well when you have to negotiate a deal with the people. The EU called the protesters on copyright issues a "mob".
So, fours dsys later and i can no longer contain my amazement that the topic isn't fizzing with reaction to Jupiters encyclical on the future of the eu.
does nobody care?
I have some questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
1. Who are the Jupiters?
2. Is encyclical an adjective, a verb or a noun and how is it related to cycling or cycles?
3. Why can I not find any recent articles about the EU when I use your words as search terms? All I get are space missions, completely unrelated stuff and one article about Macron not being a Jupiter from 2017.
If you can't find anything then nobody does care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Niche terms are usually understood by insiders in Facebook (or other social media) circles. The Leave campaign used phishing to get user data, which they then used for targeted ad campaigns on Facebook primarily disseminating untruths. When a Parliamentary committee asked the director of this campaign for information on what they'd been telling people, he refused. The committee published some of these ads, but not having been in these circles, they do not have a full list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Jupiter is probably a nickname used by said circle to refer to some individual or other. Encyclical might be their term for a circular letter; rarely seen in the normal world, but when the leader in one of these circles uses it, it becomes current among the members of that circle. So for Furunculus, those words immediately mean something to him, but to us outsiders, these words might as well be gobbledigook.
Conspiracy theory stuff is fake news.
No need for a conspiracy theory when the truth will do just nicely.
Everyone in france (and informed people elsewhere), is aware that Jupiter=Macron:
https://www.google.com/search?client...macron+jupiter
One 188k results
Re: encyclical - i do you all the credit of being educated chaps, so i consider it clearly to be understood:
That the word combined with Macrons divine self-image, references his attempt to speak to europe about the EU.
But, i'm guessing his grand vision doesn't enthuse anyone...
I kinda figured the Macron thing from the one article I found about him and had encyclical figured out with a simple search before I even sent the last post. But since I don't want to have to search several times whenebver I try to answer you, it can't hurt to use somewhat plainer language. Being educated doesn't mean one is a walking dictionary of everything. It simply saves everybody some time. I also try not to ask you about German politics using the local language, terms and jokes you don't know. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I assume you mean this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...mmanuel-macron
(see, providing a simple link to a source that you and I can trust gives a much better basis for debate than cryptic slang terms that you then disguise as intellectual talk ~;) )
It sounds a lot less neoliberal than I expected from Macron, but at the same time it seems vague enough that a lot could happen in practice.
EU reform is not a bad idea though, if Brexit leads to that, then thank you for not ruining it for us any longer.
Yanis Varoufakis around the same time on EU reform (European New Deal), and the European Spring coalition running in the EU parliamentary elections this May:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
The 2008 global financial crisis — the modern 1929 crash — set off a vicious chain reaction across Europe. By 2010 it had irreparably damaged the foundations of the eurozone, causing the establishment to bend its own rules and commit crimes against logic in order to bail out its banker friends. By 2013 the neoliberal ideology that had legitimised the EU’s oligarchic technocracy had plunged millions into misery, even through the enactment of official policies: socialism for the financiers and harsh austerity for the many. These policies were practised as much by conservatives as by social democrats. By 2015 the surrender of the Syriza government in Greece had divided and disheartened the left, robbing Europe of the short-lived hope that progressives rising up in the streets would alter the balance of power.
Since then, anger has combined with hopelessness to create a vacuum, soon filled by the organised misanthropy of a Nationalist International triumphing across Europe, and making Donald Trump a very happy man. Against the background of an establishment that increasingly resembles the unhappy Weimar Republic, and of the recalcitrant racists produced by the crisis’s deflationary forces, the European Union is fragmenting. With Angela Merkel on the way out and Emmanuel Macron’s European agenda dead on arrival, the European election in May could prove the last chance progressives have to make a difference at a pan-European level.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Our New Deal for Europe is a comprehensive plan for smartly re-deploying existing institutions in the interests of the majority, planning for a radical, post-capitalist green future, and preparing to pick up the pieces if the EU collapses.
Quote:
Well-meaning leftwing friends ask, ‘Why doesn’t DiEM25 join up with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise or Sahra Wagenknecht and Oskar Lafontaine’s Aufstehen movement in Germany? How can the left make a difference if you fail to unite?’ The reason is simple: our duty is to create unity on a foundation of radical, rational and internationalist humanism. This means a common agenda for all Europeans and a radical policy of an Open Europe that recognises borders as scars on the planet and newcomers as welcome. Nothing less will do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A
Bit of a necro-thread rival but this was the most appropriate place:
Germany's goal of a European federal state proves elusive
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-goal-...ive/a-60539427
I think that after the eurozone financial crisis, the migration crisis, brexit, and the current EU/NATO dithering in regards to Russia sorta show that a European state will not happen within the near future. From my outside view it looks like most people are happy with the economic union and its benefits but extremely wary of further political union. Perhaps in a few decades but peoples national identities are still far stronger than a European one. Kind of a Holy Roman Empire situation, when unified in action it is impressive but usually ineffective due to squabbling.Quote:
It's a vision that is even included in the deal underpinning Germany's new coalition government. But the dream of a European superstate has lost much of its luster and left Germany looking increasingly isolated.
Germany's new three-party coalition government of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Free Democrats (FDP) shares the goal of turning the EU into a European federal state. But viewed against the backdrop of current developments, it is a hugely ambitious project and no other European government has the same zeal for integration as that expressed in the ruling coalition's governing deal.
Which is perhaps surprising given the bloc's long tradition of fervent visions for its future. Back in 1957, the Treaty of Rome spoke of the "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe." And in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon echoed that striving for "ever closer union." Jacques Delors, president of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, believed that Europe was like a bicycle moving ever closer towards further integration: "Stop pedaling and the bike will fall over!" These days, that kind of almost unquestioning commitment to a trans-European federation is rare. Indeed, the movement that came to be known as Brexit left the bike struggling to stay on track, in the biggest blow yet to a shared European future.
Turning away from the EU vision
The UK had long been seen as particularly skeptical when it came to Europe. But on a visit to Berlin in March 2018, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte appeared to want to demonstrate that his euroskeptic credentials were second to none: "There has been this narrative that there is this inevitability of closer cooperation in a European federal state. This horrible language about 'ever closer Union' I don't like." Rutte rejected what he dismissed as the "romance" of an ever-closer European Union."
Even Donald Tusk, then president of the European Council, was quoted as saying at a European Business Summit in 2016: "Forcing lyrical and in fact naïve Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration, regardless of the obvious good will of their proponents, is not a suitable answer to our problems. Firstly because it is simply not possible, and secondly because — paradoxically — promoting them only leads to the strengthening of Euroskeptic moods, not only in the UK."
And it was quite a setback when in 2005 the Netherlands and France — both viewed as staunchly pro-European nations — voted in referendums to reject a European constitution. The clear message was: the vision of ever closer unity did not represent the will of the majority of the people in these countries. A number of governments with far-right populist leadership or participation, for example in Hungary and Poland, also rejected further integration.
Federal Europe: 'Nobody really wants it'
So is it blind or brave for the coalition government in Berlin to ignore the current climate of cynicism and continue to push for a European federal state? Political scientist Johannes Varwick from the University of Halle told DW that it's not worth investing in the federal vision: "If the coalition parties really believe in this, then they will find themselves being caught up by the reality that is Europe. Fact is: nobody in Europe really wants it."
It was above all the Brexit vote that persuaded lawyer Daniel Röder to found the pro-European citizens' initiative Pulse of Europe. The aim was to come up with new ideas to galvanize Europe — and not just the politicians and bureaucrats, but also ordinary European citizens. Still, Röder admits he was "surprised" to see the goal of a federal Europe suddenly popping up in the coalition agreement.
He is one person who certainly needs no additional encouragement to push for further integration. "When you look at the huge challenges that we're facing: climate change, integration, pandemics, the conflict with Russia and so on — well, you're not going to achieve much as an individual nation-state. And we can't leave everything up to China or the US, so we need further European integration." However, he adds: a European federal state "isn't necessarily the goal."
European or national solutions: Keep your options open
Just how much integration is ideal varies from issue to issue. In some areas, the EU has gone a long way towards becoming a federal state. Take the development of the single market, or joining forces in the export sector. In other areas, however, countries have been reluctant to give up on their sovereignty and instead focus on shared policy initiatives.
The battle against the COVID pandemic has only underlined this tendency. Health policies are the prerogative of the individual countries — a reality that is welcomed by some and questioned by others. On the other hand, the EU did manage to pull together to come up with a huge economic recovery package designed to ease financial hardship caused by the pandemic.
The fund also illustrates how contentious joint projects can be. When it comes to money, the big question will inevitably remain: Who pays and who profits? For the more prosperous EU member states, the constant concern is that less well-off countries will try to draw them into some kind of arrangement that involves mutualized spending and mutualized borrowing.
The chicken or the egg
Johannes Varwick says that it might be easy to dismiss the very notion of further integration. Still, he cautions: "People should think twice before abandoning such a vision." Daniel Röder from Pulse of Europe, on the other hand, says that for him it's not about visions, but realizing that if you don't move forward, you're likely to end up going backwards.
Röder says that he sees the EU in the current stage of its development as a "fragile and often ineffective construction. Only when it is capable of assuming a more credible and effective role in the interaction of global powers, will it have more clout and greater acceptance, both internally and externally." It's a chicken and egg thing, Röder concludes ominously: "No acceptance means no advancement; no advancement means no acceptance. It's a dilemma that we must resolve — otherwise, I fear the worst for this union."
We also have to note thatQuote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
applies to the sovereign constituents of the EU. The countries, and seemingly the peoples, of Europe basically can't envision any kind of future for themselves separately. How many perceive anything to hope or strive for beyond watching the slow train wreck of the 21st century pass through? People have their eyes to their feet in national terms, so how would they coalesce together around a supernational aspiration?Quote:
"No acceptance means no advancement; no advancement means no acceptance. It's a dilemma that we must resolve — otherwise, I fear the worst for this union."
The accelerationist premises, if not the arguments, are probably applicable: woe begets violence, the great leveler.
Too few people have the commitment or confidence in us working to solve big problems.
In the good times, yes. When there are no 'consequences' to doing nice economicky things that make us feel all EUropean.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
But these are not the good times, and we expect 'the state' to step in and do extraordinary things to preserve our declining welfare.
Germany benefits from the single currency by having its natural foriegn exchange rate suppressed by the wider currency region. Its goods are cheaper, but by the same token it raises the exchange rate for the wider currency region. Making their goods more expensive.
And this happens whilst engaging in none of the normal solidarity acts that nation states engage in to normalise wealth potential within the 'regions':
Federal US taxation is ~25% of GDP and the variation in spending levels between rich and poor states is ~5% of GDP, so a variation of roughly 20% of federal spending.
How big a budget would the EU need to be able to slosh around 5% of combined GDP into the poor regions (bearing in mind the current budget is only 1% (and heavily constrained by CAP payments)?
The other point is that americans accept this, they are all american, whereas we are rapidly finding out just how german the germans are, and finnish the finns are, when it comes to firehosing cash at nations they consider to be essentially delinquent! In the UK this ‘sloshing’ occurs in the form of:
a) National pay-bargaining which benefits poorer regions (teachers, nurses, etc)
b) National social benefits more generous than poorer regions could afford alone (eg.housing benefit in glasgow)
c) Targeted regional development grants/discounts to encourage business growth (objective 1 EU/WEFO funds)
d) Additional infrastructure spending to support the local economy (the mainland-skye bridge)
e) Operating national services hubs from depressed regions to boost wages (DVLA in swansea, etc)
Unless Germany recognises the ‘familial’ relationship, and the obligation that goes along with that, then it needs to leave for the good of its neighbours.
This principal applies equally to the netherlands and finland, but since it is Germany that is the driving economic power for the euro’s sake the answer must be ‘right’.
One mechanism to equalise this foriegn exchange disparity would be eurobonds. To compensate for a higher than natural foriegn exchange rate the wider currency union would borrow collectively, and thus lower their borrowing costs on the back of Germany’s strength.
The quid-pro-quo would be that Germany’s cost of borrowing would rise, as it too would be borrowing through the wider currency union and would see its strength diluted in consequence.
What is happening right now is commonly termed “wanting to have your cake, and eat it too“, an attitude considered ugly by weaker members of the polity who consider that cake to be shared treat.
An economic union cannot exist long term without a political union from which to draw legitimacy from for the acts that it must take in regulating society.