A general observation for future EU threads

[Kalis]

On this forum there has been a very specific policy of permitting quite openly xenophobia and race-baiting threads and deleting the responses. To a large extent this plays out on the internet generally.

If there is no moderation, racists tend to turn up. They tend to shout everyone else down and no one wants to be around that shit so they just leave.

If there is moderation as on this forum, you get a disproportionate number of anal hall monitors who naturally are right-wing and authoritarian (obviously so, they want to impose their authority on others). Several posts I've seen infracted or had myself could not have any plausible justification other than bigotry or possibly just very extreme stupidity on the part of the moderator. So this makes the problem worse than no moderation at all.

Which endorses the basic point that the internet does not accurately represent feeling in the EU itself.

If you think the moderation on this forum is right wing then your centre is off, authoritarian very possibly, but certainly not right wing.

And from my experience of Europeans, which is mostly the island nations, but also includes lots of continental Europeans who work on those islands from a broad spectrum of industries and backgrounds, most people have issues with the EU, but see the general concept as fine and so becoming anti-EU would not be a huge swing. Very few people I have met are pro-EU partisans.

[Deleted]

If you think the moderation on this forum is right wing then your centre is off, authoritarian very possibly, but certainly not right wing.

And from my experience of Europeans, which is mostly the island nations, but also includes lots of continental Europeans who work on those islands from a broad spectrum of industries and backgrounds, most people have issues with the EU, but see the general concept as fine and so becoming anti-EU would not be a huge swing. Very few people I have met are pro-EU partisans.

I think that changed after Brexit. The thought that the EU might be destroyed seemed to solidify support for it.

About moderation: there was a very specific issue where I made a detailed response to one of the periodic Islam-bashing methods about what literally is in the various Islamic holy texts. It was not in any way inflammmatory. This was deleted and I was infracted on grounds that religous discussion was forbidden, which was obviously nonsenical given the nature of the thread. I find it very difficult to believe the moderator wasn't acting out of bias towards the far right. I don't think they are particulary sympathetic to one-nation tories in your mould if that is what you are getting at.

[Kalis]

If british protections where stronger wouldn´t they automatically be used instead of the EU ones?

We still have to comply with EU regulations and that increases time and costs, we didn't scrap our existing protections.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that changed after Brexit. The thought that the EU might be destroyed seemed to solidify support for it.

Maybe in central Europe, where pro-EU feeling is strongest, but from my experience I am not convinced the rest of Europe feels that way. In fact I have never heard such public anti-EU sentiment from continental Europeans as since Brexit, but that may be due to more people actually talking about the issues-post-Brexit vote and they might have held those views before.

I think the migrant crisis is the killer for most people.

- - - Updated - - -

About moderation: there was a very specific issue where I made a detailed response to one of the periodic Islam-bashing methods about what literally is in the various Islamic holy texts. It was not in any way inflammmatory. This was deleted and I was infracted on grounds that religous discussion was forbidden, which was obviously nonsenical given the nature of the thread. I find it very difficult to believe the moderator wasn't acting out of bias towards the far right. I don't think they are particulary sympathetic to one-nation tories in your mould if that is what you are getting at.

I don't think they even know what One Nation Tories are, so have neither sympathy nor antipathy towards our views. I can't think of any far right sympathising mods on Gen OT, so I doubt that was the reason for your infraction.

[Deleted]

I think the migrant crisis is the killer for most people.

I'm not sure whether this is the people or the right-wing media scaremongering.

The largest immigrant group to the UK is the Chinese. No one cares about that. Thought experiment: the Mail and the other dailies run regular stories about the sinister yellow peril, Chinese infiltrators hacking our secrets, carrying out espionage against our countries and plotting a commie takeover. Remember those Chinese breed like rabbits and need to take over the world.

In a month the public would be out for blood.

[Mayhem]

We still have to comply with EU regulations and that increases time and costs, we didn't scrap our existing protections.

Don´t they atomatically comply with EU regulations if they are better?

[Kalis]

Don´t they atomatically comply with EU regulations if they are better?

No, we have to implement unnecessary crap due to Solvency II, that is the issue. They are not beneficial to the UK consumers, nor any non-UK consumers we deal with, as we already use UK regulation for them.

It is what happens when they try to use a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation, it may well have increased consumer protection in Bulgaria, but it did bugger all in the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure whether this is the people or the right-wing media scaremongering.

The largest immigrant group to the UK is the Chinese. No one cares about that.

Probably because they are not over represented in crime statistics, nor are they bombing people, or screaming racism whenever the Old Bill try to investigate them.

Thought experiment: the Mail and the other dailies run regular stories about the sinister yellow peril, Chinese infiltrators hacking our secrets, carrying out espionage against our countries and plotting a commie takeover. Remember those Chinese breed like rabbits and need to take over the world.

In a month the public would be out for blood.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that, we aren't getting the low end Chinese in any great numbers.

[Deleted]

The one-size-fits-all approach has long been seen as faulty, e.g. regulation that might be good for France may not be for the UK and Germany. Unlike some of the myopic pro-EU partisans on these forums who can see no wrong with it at all, many pro-EU membership people are like myself and like the general idea of the EU, but know the EU needs reform and to cut down on its general tendency to overcomplicate everything' i.e. to reduce the bureaucracy.

Standardization does wonders in manufacturing and production, where you create real goods. It's just a problem for the UK because they do not want to switch to common standards, but the rest of Europe is quite happy about it.

As for the financial sector, Europe will one day tax as a single body, and from there we'll enter a new simpler epoch.

[Venant]

If you think the moderation on this forum is right wing then your centre is off, authoritarian very possibly, but certainly not right wing.

And from my experience of Europeans, which is mostly the island nations, but also includes lots of continental Europeans who work on those islands from a broad spectrum of industries and backgrounds, most people have issues with the EU, but see the general concept as fine and so becoming anti-EU would not be a huge swing. Very few people I have met are pro-EU partisans.

I think future EU related threads are going to involve lots of people being reported for 'internet hate crimes', followed shortly after by people mysteriously disappearing from the forums.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37601431

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said: "The internet's not an anonymous place where people can post without any consequences. People should think about their own conduct.
"If you are grossly abusive to people, if you are bullying or harassing people online, then we will prosecute in the same way as if you did it offline."

[Kalis]

Standardization does wonders in manufacturing and production, where you create real goods. It's just a problem for the UK because they do not want to switch to common standards, but the rest of Europe is quite happy about it.

As for the financial sector, Europe will one day tax as a single body, and from there we'll enter a new simpler epoch.

To claim the rest of Europe is quite happy about Solvency II regulations is just a lie, or you don't know what you are talking about and making an ignorant assumption.

You don't force industries to implement crappy irrelevant regulations just so everybody has crappy irrelevant regulations, that is not what standardisation is supposed to be for, that is just pointless.

[Mayhem]

No, we have to implement unnecessary crap due to Solvency II, that is the issue. They are not beneficial to the UK consumers, nor any non-UK consumers we deal with, as we already use UK regulation for them.

It is what happens when they try to use a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation, it may well have increased consumer protection in Bulgaria, but it did bugger all in the UK.

I´ll take your word for it, what do you think would be a better approach?

[Deleted]

To claim the rest of Europe is quite happy about Solvency II regulations is just a lie, or you don't know what you are talking about and making an ignorant assumption.

I was speaking of the manufacturing sector. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

[Kalis]

I´ll take your word for it, what do you think would be a better approach?

Not treating insurers like banks and accepting that an industry which has proven itself to be robust is robust.

Banks require more liquidity in their assets than insurers typically do, Solvency II regulation requirements are subjecting the insurance market to more volatility in markets than they would usually be exposed to - that is a bad thing, you do not want your insurance company more exposed to financial risks, for obvious reasons.

For a perfect example of why you don't want more volatility in insurer assests, just take a look at what happened in 2008. The UK insurance industry was insulated from many of the problems that plagued the banks, so whilst the insurance sector struggled their issues were smaller than the banking sector and could be spread out over a longer period, thus lessening the immediate impact.

The UK insurance companies rode the storm, whilst the banks were getting bailed out left, right and centre. Now imagine if just about every business contract with an insurance requirement in them was null and void due to insurers going to the wall, or suddenly you can't drive due to no car insurance, or the mortgage lenders deem you have defaulted on the terms of your mortgage as your house buildings insurance was worthless.


If they wanted to increase standards in countries with a smaller and more volatile insurance market, then model it on insurance regulations that have proven themselves to be robust, not banking regulations, we are not banks.

[nextormento]

You don't force industries to implement crappy irrelevant regulations just so everybody has crappy irrelevant regulations, that is not what standardisation is supposed to be for, that is just pointless.

I'm certainly not privy to specifics on the insurance sector.
But this issue you're exploring reminds me of the Eurocodes. They were a massive pain to comply with and eventually implement into national law; and at points clearly detached from local specifics. But I don't miss the old days in the slightest, and I certainly welcome how simple it is for us to comply with regulation when building anywhere across the EU.
I suppose there's opinions swinging every which way. Harmonization has its weakness and its strengths.

[Kalis]

I'm certainly not privy to specifics on the insurance sector.
But this issue you're exploring reminds me of the Eurocodes. They were a massive pain to comply with and eventually implement into national law; and at points clearly detached from local specifics. But I don't miss the old days in the slightest, and I certainly welcome how simple it is for us to comply with regulation when building anywhere across the EU.
I suppose there's opinions swinging every which way. Harmonization has its weakness and its strengths.

I have no issue with minimum standards, I have issues with regulations that are treating the entire financial services industry as a monolithic entity that needs compatible regulations based on the largest portion of it (i.e. the banking sector), it is over simplifying a complex problem.

[Deleted]

Don't think some of those are valid criticisms either.

The EU is one of the only political bodies in the world that posts all of it's stuff online:

http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregi...ic/homePage.do

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/acc...s/index_en.htm

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/re...mb&language=en

- - - Updated - - -



France and Germany are always and will always be considerably pro-EU.

If you're talking about the Netherlands, election projections and polls are showing a massive win for VVD (a liberal party, part of the largest liberal EU coalition, ultimately very pro-EU) and the PvdA (left wing party). ( Source )

In a neighbouring country, Belgium, it's mostly the left-wing parties who are gaining popularity, and Belgium, heart of the EU in Brussels is often a good barometer for the elections everywhere else in West-Europe. It's only the east european countries who are going through a sort of puberty phase in being rebelious.

So while on the internet there's a lot of loud right wingers and anti-EU posters, overall it seems that the EU is gaining stronger support within West-Europe itself. The only outlier is the UK with it's Brexit plans, but almost every expert is calling it out as a disaster about to happen, and one the UK people might quickly change their opinion about in the nearest elections after a few years of nasty recessions.

Everywhere else the support for the EU is growing, the pro-EU parties are projected to gain more votes in their next elections and more and more people in West-Europe and Scandinavia are starting to self-identify as European first and <insert their country's nationality> second.

Anyone checking the facts and going by the numbers would be an idiot to think the EU is losing support or weakening.

You learn something new everyday, thanks.

[Mayhem]

Not treating insurers like banks and accepting that an industry which has proven itself to be robust is robust.

Banks require more liquidity in their assets than insurers typically do, Solvency II regulation requirements are subjecting the insurance market to more volatility in markets than they would usually be exposed to - that is a bad thing, you do not want your insurance company more exposed to financial risks, for obvious reasons.

For a perfect example of why you don't want more volatility in insurer assests, just take a look at what happened in 2008. The UK insurance industry was insulated from many of the problems that plagued the banks, so whilst the insurance sector struggled their issues were smaller than the banking sector and could be spread out over a longer period, thus lessening the immediate impact.

The UK insurance companies rode the storm, whilst the banks were getting bailed out left, right and centre. Now imagine if just about every business contract with an insurance requirement in them was null and void due to insurers going to the wall, or suddenly you can't drive due to no car insurance, or the mortgage lenders deem you have defaulted on the terms of your mortgage as your house buildings insurance was worthless.


If they wanted to increase standards in countries with a smaller and more volatile insurance market, then model it on insurance regulations that have proven themselves to be robust, not banking regulations, we are not banks.

I see your point, though i have not enough knowledge about the difference between insurance risks and banking risks, it does seem to make sense to not treat them the same if they clearly aren´t the same.

[Ravenblade]

I doubt we have to worry about a EU anymore after the 2017 elections in many EU "pillar" countries anyway.

This has been said about the Brexit as well. We have a saying here: Nothing is eaten as hot as it was cooked.

[Slant]

That is really not arguable at all. If you have an extra-national entity creating laws for your country than your national sovereignty is being infringed on for better or for worse.

No it's not. Infringement implies action against your will. Those countries voluntarily handed over authority. Learn the goddamn words and use your language properly.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been said about the Brexit as well. We have a saying here: Nothing is eaten as hot as it was cooked.

But when you see smoke, usually there is a fire somewhere.

[Oktoberfest]

Fuck the New World Order

The only thing that gives me hope is that both Left and Right see the evil in the idea.

[Mehrunes]

By its very existence the EU is an infringement of the sovereignty of every nation that is a member. Yes, it IS true that each nation that is a member gave up a portion of their sovereignty to join, but its still an infringement.

Considering that the very fact countries have the ability in bold is one of the aspects of sovereignty, the conclusion is patently false.