Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Acidbaron View Post
    I wouldn't throw too many assumptions around regarding who or what i support, especially not when trying to make a paper thin argument.

    I find your observations to be rather naive, this is probably because you don't have a lot of dealings with these kind of people. And no i will never join in your hand waving mindset of political parties that endorse hate and violence towards others and not just because i don't endorse political inspired violence or hatred but because these political parties are creating smoke screens, their solution to any problem is simply deal with all the immigrants and put them in a lower tier category compared to others and things will be fine. And they use this for climate change, for social economic issues, such as disposable income and work opportunities.

    And sure behind every racist and behind every voter of a far right party is a story of human suffering and tragedy, but these parties don't offer solutions, they don't say how they are going to help "their own" better, all they do is offer targets which they can direct those struggling can focus their anger and frustration towards.

    And now instead of getting angry of hand waving what i just said, take up the party program from your far right party in your own country and read it, and when you do come back here and say it is not the same from 80 years ago. Because i read mine and it's all about mass deportation, apartheid laws, night curfews, restriction of personal liberties of other thinkers, increasing rights of the police, decreasing rights of the accused.

    Because i think you have only just started peeping into what the far right actually endorses and promotes, i have been sitting on the right since my 18th and even before so no when a guy like you comes up and tells me they are very different from compared to way back when you simply have not been looking close enough. What makes sense that's why you bring up things like Hillary and Soros. Which are very much irrelevant but they represent the other category the far right likes to target in their diversion tactics, the globalists (what is such a broad term that using it as an insult is simply going full out retard)
    Ok, that is a lot to unroll, so I will try my best to organize it as well as I can:

    Ok, that is fair, I assumed you supported Hillary because you apparently positioned yourself on the left. What I meant is: will you be OK when those rules you want be applied to you/people you support?

    My observations are not naive, they are based on principle. You either apply political restrictions to all parties or to no parties and I firmly believe that no restrictions is the best policy. Removing a party from a run does not remove the reason people are supporting them in the first place and that is what needs to be addressed.

    I agree that in general, radical right wing parties won't offer solutions to the people supporting them, but left wing parties do not either, plus they deny those people problem even exist and call them racists. I don't blame them on their choices, I blame establish parties for their dismissal.

    I have done that for my country (Brazil, which I don't live in anymore, but I still must vote there) and couldn't really find an terrible things on their programs, can't talk about Belgium thought. Although I have not voted for them, I don't think they are nearly as bad as the left wing people try to portrait them and since they won, I guess we will see in the next years. I also don't think that many parties named far right wing in the media are actually far right wing, they are only right wing (or even centrist in some cases).

    I brought Soros up because he is to many non progressive people the classic movie villan who has his tentacles everywhere and is manipulating people to vote against their best interests. That is, for me, a very good analogy on how the progressives see Russian influences. As I said, I don't doubt either is financing propaganda to benefit their ends, but I don't believe that their impact is as big or their intentions are ville.
    Last edited by Knolan; 2019-02-27 at 03:02 PM.
    I may not be an overachiever, but my Druid is richer than half of Venezuela.

  2. #82
    Titan Acidbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    14,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Knolan View Post
    Ok, that is a lot to unroll, so I will try my best to organize it as well as I can:

    Ok, that is fair, I assumed you supported Hillary because you apparently positioned yourself on the left. What I meant is: will you be OK when those rules you want be applied to you/people you support?

    My observations are not naive, they are based on principle. You either apply political restrictions to all parties or to no parties and I firmly believe that no restrictions is the best policy. Removing a party from a run does not remove the reason people are supporting them in the first place and that is what needs to be addressed.

    I agree that in general, radical right wing parties won't offer solutions to the people supporting them, but left wing parties do not either, plus they deny those people problem even exist and call them racists. I don't blame them on their choices, I blame establish parties for their dismissal.

    I have done that for my country (Brazil, which I don't live in anymore, but I still must vote there) and couldn't really find an terrible things on their programs, can't talk about Belgium thought. Although I have not voted for them, I don't think they are nearly as bad as the left wing people try to portrait them and since they won, I guess we will see in the next years. I also don't think that many parties named far right wing in the media are actually far right wing, they are only right wing (or even centrist in some cases).

    I brought Soros up because he is to many non progressive people the classic movie villan who has his tentacles everywhere and is manipulating people to vote against their best interests. That is, for me, a very good analogy on how the progressives see Russian influences. As I said, I don't doubt either is financing propaganda to benefit their ends, but I don't believe that their impact is as big or their intentions are ville.
    I sit on the right spectrum for the largest part and am a card carrying member of a party that identifies itself as flemish nationalists. There is very little what i consider to be actually left in the united states, neither Hillary or Obama were left, you really don't have socialism in the united states and even plans that would benefit the vast majority requires quite a lot of effort to go through.

    The left and right division in Europe is also vastly different, were there are more centrists and more political parties that differ from left or right ideology depending on issue. For example to use Merkel, she's part of the CDU what are christian democrats (centrum right), if you had to look at simply part of her immigration proposal you would look at her as left, if you look at her economically you would say right, if you look at human rights, for example gay rights, you would call her right.

    As for who's worse, i don't really know and honestly i don't tend to make that equation all i care for is people on the far right give people on the left easy ammunition to retort back, that's not to say that i agree with your assessment that they ignore issues that are there, they look at it differently. But i tend to look more within my own ranks when it comes to what we are doing and saying and yes, being called a racist in a debate is not uncommon but those arguments are easily put aside if you let them elaborate further.

    The parties named by Skroe are actually far right, there are centrist right ones but Front Nationale is hardly located in the centrum to name one. They gain more traction now also due to formerly mostly christian democratic parties have failed and have generally been in power for a long long time.

    I find Russia far more problematic than Soros mostly because a lot of the talk surrounding Soros is hearsay, recently on BBC world news an Italian MP was confronted about Soros and if he had any proof and essentially it boiled down to "well he had meetings with people!". Soros isn't even on my radar. Putin is as i still have grand parents and people i talk to that are alive from the Sovjet era. So when reports come out that Russia specifically targets civilians in hope to increase the refugee stream towards europe to create a further political divide they can benefit from i personally believe that, since that's simply textbook sovjets.

  3. #83
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    You're trying to keep your empire together by any means. I guess Germany personally benefits too much from current arrangement. Any significant reconfiguration will probably have Germany worse off even if EU will still stand.
    If the UKs drop pre-Brexit in economic performance is any indication already then anyone believing being "better off without the EU" is a pipedream and an effective "worse off", not just for Germany. Anyhow, it's nice to see a candid talk about a complete break-up already.

    Outside money just potentially gives those populists voice; but it's the message that gets them votes, not outside money.
    Money that can be spent on campaigns and buses that carry ambiguous messages, you mean? Money is the lubricant for every election campaign and the glue for every message. How far this can escalate can be seen how often parties get caught in election funding scandals and how quick the accused are with denying any involvement.

    Maybe you should work on better message instead rather then "everything is perfectly fine, everyone who thinks things aren't fine and wants to try alternatives is mad or agent of hostile powers"? Maybe you should allow politicians to make mistakes and for people to learn from them? Maybe your EU should get more resistant to them through mitigation rather then prevention.
    I am not the one saying everything is perfectly fine. But the solution doesn't come from the fringes of the political spectrum especially when they are quick to point fingers and single out groups they define as "the guilty ones" but if they were to put solutions and constructive ideas on a paper they would only need a sticky note and it would leave enough space for a 3 year old to draw something with wax crayons. The EU is still made up of countries, each of which having their own laws actually prohibiting non-EU funding of election campaigns.

    And... how do you really know Russian plan? Why do you even think they have one, rather then pursuing opportunities as they come? And not even necessarily in any unified way/plan at that - many, if not most of Russian oligarchs are naturally right-wing and can offer spare change to like-minded parties anywhere.
    It doesn't take many leaps and bounces to make an educate guess. You, by yourselves, have mentioned it in the first paragraph and there is really not much to add to it except that it's perfectly reasonable - in a Machiavellian sense - to help achieving it, it doesn't even matter whether Putin himself or one of his friends are in it.

    It's not like Putin drops billions on someone's lap on demand. Germany can and does entice Russia away from many opportunities already by offering their own.
    I am not saying that anything has happened yet or ever will, it could be that the Chinese will be faster again. Even if it's just a conspiraceeeh!, it's at least a sign of vigilance and awareness about the matter. I also doubt that Italy as a whole can simply last long on the narrative of the "EU and Mediterranean invaders" that are supposedly keep them economically down. There's only one name you'd need to drop to set the records straight: Silvio Berlusconi.
    Last edited by Ravenblade; 2019-02-27 at 11:45 PM.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    If the UKs drop pre-Brexit in economic performance is any indication already then anyone believing being "better off without the EU" is a pipedream and an effective "worse off", not just for Germany. Anyhow, it's nice to see a candid talk about a complete break-up already.
    Countries certainly can survive outside of EU. And it isn't obvious that would not be net positive; not from GDP metric but from societal level. Like, for example, seeing how truly clueless current politicians are and working on getting better ones.

    GDP isn't everything, and some service sectors get overly inflated contribution there, skewing government incentives if GDP is the primary (or even sole) performance metric. ...and possibly skewing EU incentives too, i guess.

    Money that can be spent on campaigns and buses that carry ambiguous messages, you mean? Money is the lubricant for every election campaign and the glue for every message. How far this can escalate can be seen how often parties get caught in election funding scandals and how quick the accused are with denying any involvement.
    Everyone can rent and paint a bus. It is usually not even particularly costly. Bus with good message can mean media coverage though, amplifying it way beyond it's bus-impact (like that infamous NHS Brexit bus).

    There are plenty of accusations of Russian money around, and distinct lack of evidence.

    Do Russians offer funding? Yes, that does seem to happen often enough - not to everyone, but if you look hard and go through certain circles it's possible.

    Are there actually any takers? That seems to happen a lot less often. The only proven one i remember is Front National in France, and that only happened because no French bank would give them a loan despite all guarantees - even, supposedly, greater guarantees then that gotten loans to other French presidential candidates. So they gotten it from "First Russian Czech Bank" and have been diligently paying it ever since.

    It looks like Russian money only gets there if you suppress those parties too hard. Maybe you shouldn't? Because yes, once money is accepted, perceptions get skewed. (and that happens with EU/US funding of opposition in Russia as well, even if their declared mission is promotion of democracy and good governance only)

    I am not the one saying everything is perfectly fine. But the solution doesn't come from the fringes of the political spectrum especially when they are quick to point fingers and single out groups they define as "the guilty ones" but if they were to put solutions and constructive ideas on a paper they would only need a sticky note and it would leave enough space for a 3 year old to draw something with wax crayons. The EU is still made up of countries, each of which having their own laws actually prohibiting non-EU funding of election campaigns.
    Apparently France is a lot more relaxed with loans rather then direct contributions.

    Yaroufakis had solid plan based on sound economic reasoning. It wasn't rejected on it's merits. There was no discussion that refuted his points.

    Plenty of solutions that are deemed unacceptable (like total debt forgiveness to Greece, or delaying all payments until situation improved) not because that wouldn't work (it would and immediately make things better for Greece), but because it would make reaching other goals (like reforming Greek governance, or, alternatively, privatizing and buying out their industries that they could otherwise use to get out of debt trap) impossible.

    And people often are against those other goals primarily; yes, they want problems solved. But they want costs and approaches to be negotiable to the ones they can find acceptable too, not just imposed upon them without any recourse.

    Once they aren't given that they can turn to anyone, including Russians.

    It doesn't take many leaps and bounces to make an educate guess. You, by yourselves, have mentioned it in the first paragraph and there is really not much to add to it except that it's perfectly reasonable - in a Machiavellian sense - to help achieving it, it doesn't even matter whether Putin himself or one of his friends are in it.
    It doesn't have to be Machiavellian though. Incentives and reasoning for that can be quite direct for those with different mindset where EU is seen only as one of many different options - and not necessarily the best one.

    I am not saying that anything has happened yet or ever will, it could be that the Chinese will be faster again. Even if it's just a conspiraceeeh!, it's at least a sign of vigilance and awareness about the matter. I also doubt that Italy as a whole can simply last long on the narrative of the "EU and Mediterranean invaders" that are supposedly keep them economically down. There's only one name you'd need to drop to set the records straight: Silvio Berlusconi.
    They got to find their own solution, and that means trying different things. Once currently-stated reasons are eliminated, real reasons should get more obvious.

  5. #85
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Countries certainly can survive outside of EU. And it isn't obvious that would not be net positive; not from GDP metric but from societal level. Like, for example, seeing how truly clueless current politicians are and working on getting better ones.

    GDP isn't everything, and some service sectors get overly inflated contribution there, skewing government incentives if GDP is the primary (or even sole) performance metric. ...and possibly skewing EU incentives too, i guess.
    This isn't about survival of a country, a country isn't just going to fail without the EU. It's about being worse or better off in comparison to before being in the EU. The UK was one of the biggest economies in the EU and they did their homework, and are already worse off before they even have left. More companies are leaving the UK. What chance is there that Italy would be better off without the EU than the UK?
    Also I think you have completely misunderstood the GDP as a whole and Italy's structural issues are not because of some flawed market value indicator. Even if it were flawed it wouldn't magically improve their situation. Not liking a colur doesn't mean it's going to vanish from my visual spectrum.

    Everyone can rent and paint a bus. It is usually not even particularly costly. Bus with good message can mean media coverage though, amplifying it way beyond it's bus-impact (like that infamous NHS Brexit bus).
    No, not everyone could rent a bus and campaign with it for months and years, unless they are rich or owner of said bus. If someone can do it and some small party knows the facts what chances do they have to rent multiple buses with the debunking comments plastered on them? None whatsoever. What chances are there that someone with enough money in the pockets could out-scream the people with the facts? Pretty much higher especially with online media fake accounts and bought leads. No, "not everyone" can do everything one can do with much more money during an election campaign.

    Are there actually any takers? That seems to happen a lot less often. The only proven one i remember is Front National in France, and that only happened because no French bank would give them a loan despite all guarantees - even, supposedly, greater guarantees then that gotten loans to other French presidential candidates. So they gotten it from "First Russian Czech Bank" and have been diligently paying it ever since.
    A loan isn't the same as a donation.

    Yaroufakis had solid plan based on sound economic reasoning. It wasn't rejected on it's merits. There was no discussion that refuted his points.

    Plenty of solutions that are deemed unacceptable (like total debt forgiveness to Greece, or delaying all payments until situation improved) not because that wouldn't work (it would and immediately make things better for Greece), but because it would make reaching other goals (like reforming Greek governance, or, alternatively, privatizing and buying out their industries that they could otherwise use to get out of debt trap) impossible.

    And people often are against those other goals primarily; yes, they want problems solved. But they want costs and approaches to be negotiable to the ones they can find acceptable too, not just imposed upon them without any recourse.

    Once they aren't given that they can turn to anyone, including Russians.
    I wasn't talking about missed opportunities due to not following Varoufakis' grand designs, I was talking about populists and how Russia seems to be gung-ho with supporting far right nationalists and populists as if they are the cure. They are certainly the panacea for unity.

    It doesn't have to be Machiavellian though. Incentives and reasoning for that can be quite direct for those with different mindset where EU is seen only as one of many different options - and not necessarily the best one.
    That would be fine if it only applied to countries not being part of the EU at all. It isn't fine for EU members. Those who joined knew their rights and duties. They aren't in the EU because they were forced to, they are in because they deemed it to be the best option. So far, from what I've heard ever from people against the very idea, it is usually a mix of conspiracy theories, a false understanding of its institutions and overblown expectations. It's the same people who would complain about it if their own state does these things, and often they even do. The UK happily adopted EU regulations in which the UK had their say too, saved them countless of parliamentary debates, now they have to make up thousands of their own and wouldn't have a chance to be finished with it in months of time, let alone within one month left.

    They got to find their own solution, and that means trying different things. Once currently-stated reasons are eliminated, real reasons should get more obvious.
    The reasons are already known, for decades actually, and no, the solution isn't quitting the EU - they are not primarily at fault. Maybe they will decide to leave the Euro, maybe the EU will even compromise in favor of Italy. It's all a matter of tone and approach. Ireland led by example and they are still within the EU.

    Yes, after Ukraine crisis Russia certainly would like to achieve a complete breakup of the EU, for geopolitical reasons, that's the only reason. There is no tip-toeing around that. It's also known that Russia is going for the long-haul and there is awareness about that within the EU including Italy. It's not about wanting the best, or best option, it's about control and influence and whether to stem any attempt of getting a foot in the door as early as possible.
    Last edited by Ravenblade; 2019-02-28 at 01:02 PM.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    What's with nationalists and loving support from Russia?
    Well they can hardly afford to be picky with their friends can they?

    Kind of like Putin...

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    This isn't about survival of a country, a country isn't just going to fail without the EU. It's about being worse or better off in comparison to before being in the EU. The UK was one of the biggest economies in the EU and they did their homework, and are already worse off before they even have left. More companies are leaving the UK. What chance is there that Italy would be better off without the EU than the UK?
    It is balancing act. Sometimes you have to make some sacrifices in one area to win at another.

    UK failed to balance needs/wants of their citizens against needs/wants of EU, didn't manage to push through decisions that would placate them through EU bureaucracy, after those failures put decision to vote, and needs/wants of citizens won by slim margin. And for that reason it has no option but to leave to re-configure itself. Economy has to suffer for some time to keep society stable and masses placated - more stable then alternatives, that is. We aren't seeing riots yet, right?

    Instead of allowing some limitations UK wanted (like certain restrictions to freedom of movement) EU (primarily Germany) out of fear that other might follow suit and make some non-negotiable things negotiable created situation where someone had to lose; and in current situation both sides lost. Which is fair result of such strategy. You lose flexibility and under enough pressure something breaks.

    EU paints it as loss that is needed for greater gains as it will deter others; we'll see if it will pay off. I have my doubts. It could just as well lead EU to downward spiral despite UK's "bad example" - there doesn't seem to be any real understanding as everything is painted as just result of "stupidity of UK politicians"/"gullible population".

    Also I think you have completely misunderstood the GDP as a whole and Italy's structural issues are not because of some flawed market value indicator. Even if it were flawed it wouldn't magically improve their situation. Not liking a colur doesn't mean it's going to vanish from my visual spectrum.
    Italy's issues with EU currently is that they want to run higher deficits to get some of programs they promised to their voters going.

    This only matters in relation to GDP in that EU uses GDP values and dynamics against debt values as weight on wherever such decisions are prudent and/or warranted.

    No, not everyone could rent a bus and campaign with it for months and years, unless they are rich or owner of said bus. If someone can do it and some small party knows the facts what chances do they have to rent multiple buses with the debunking comments plastered on them? None whatsoever. What chances are there that someone with enough money in the pockets could out-scream the people with the facts? Pretty much higher especially with online media fake accounts and bought leads. No, "not everyone" can do everything one can do with much more money during an election campaign.
    Why none whatsoever? If one side can do it the other certainly can do it - and did. There were pro-Remain messages too.



    Why do you think remainers had less in their pockets exactly? There also was a lot of debunking going together with media coverage of NHS bus.

    A loan isn't the same as a donation.
    There doesn't seem to be any proven examples of accepted donations from Russians. I remember stories of some attempts that were rejected as per law. Loans do happen now and then.

    I wasn't talking about missed opportunities due to not following Varoufakis' grand designs, I was talking about populists and how Russia seems to be gung-ho with supporting far right nationalists and populists as if they are the cure. They are certainly the panacea for unity.
    But you reject populists in the same way as you reject Yaroufakis - without seriously discussing merits of their approaches and why they gain popularity. Yaroufakis is example of how you would still reject them even if they had well-grounded plan, so it's hard to take complaints "but they don't have a plan!" seriously. It wouldn't change if they did (and some certainly do).

    That would be fine if it only applied to countries not being part of the EU at all. It isn't fine for EU members. Those who joined knew their rights and duties. They aren't in the EU because they were forced to, they are in because they deemed it to be the best option. So far, from what I've heard ever from people against the very idea, it is usually a mix of conspiracy theories, a false understanding of its institutions and overblown expectations. It's the same people who would complain about it if their own state does these things, and often they even do. The UK happily adopted EU regulations in which the UK had their say too, saved them countless of parliamentary debates, now they have to make up thousands of their own and wouldn't have a chance to be finished with it in months of time, let alone within one month left.
    Perhaps that was UK downfall as well. By not putting those things up to debate they didn't create arguments they could use to defend those EU decision. So when they were called to defend EU in referendum, they couldn't do that - they had no idea how to. Explaining things in a way people can understand doesn't come automatically - you have to practice.

    And after initial failures of EU constitution EU seems to be way too wary of putting many things up to public debate... that might be hiding huge fault lines elsewhere.

    The reasons are already known, for decades actually, and no, the solution isn't quitting the EU - they are not primarily at fault. Maybe they will decide to leave the Euro, maybe the EU will even compromise in favor of Italy. It's all a matter of tone and approach. Ireland led by example and they are still within the EU.
    "Known" how exactly? How do you convince politicians/people of this knowledge being true without those politicians trying alternatives?

    Yes, after Ukraine crisis Russia certainly would like to achieve a complete breakup of the EU, for geopolitical reasons, that's the only reason. There is no tip-toeing around that. It's also known that Russia is going for the long-haul and there is awareness about that within the EU including Italy. It's not about wanting the best, or best option, it's about control and influence and whether to stem any attempt of getting a foot in the door as early as possible.
    Same can be told about Germany - trying to keep EU together and unchanging on some points at any cost. Even if that cost is UK leaving.

    The result over decades will probably be not EU dissolution but "core EU" that actually shares those cherished values remaining and sides splintering into different alliances; or keeping EU together but those values being compromised upon.

  8. #88
    I am Murloc! Ravenblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany - Thuringia
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It is balancing act. Sometimes you have to make some sacrifices in one area to win at another.

    UK failed to balance needs/wants of their citizens against needs/wants of EU, didn't manage to push through decisions that would placate them through EU bureaucracy, after those failures put decision to vote, and needs/wants of citizens won by slim margin. And for that reason it has no option but to leave to re-configure itself. Economy has to suffer for some time to keep society stable and masses placated - more stable then alternatives, that is. We aren't seeing riots yet, right?

    Instead of allowing some limitations UK wanted (like certain restrictions to freedom of movement) EU (primarily Germany) out of fear that other might follow suit and make some non-negotiable things negotiable created situation where someone had to lose; and in current situation both sides lost. Which is fair result of such strategy. You lose flexibility and under enough pressure something breaks.
    No, actually Cameron simply pokered too high because he underestimated the sceptics. He didn't give a lot room for preparations, people stumbled into it in part believing it's some kind of joke and in part unable to foresee the effects. In addition they set the bar for an accepted majority let alone participation too low. The public debate was also instantly hijacked by leavers first since they had a head-start with an existing Eurosceptic faction within the UKIP. It was a premade disaster. It was also within the EU's right to put thumbscrews on from the start in order to deter members from "simply leaving" through populism-spurred *exits. A lot leavers especially those depending on speedy transits are already having second thoughts.

    Italy's issues with EU currently is that they want to run higher deficits to get some of programs they promised to their voters going.
    If Italy would have fixed their situation a decade ago they wouldn't need to make this kind of costly promise on the verge of recession. The problem was that the EU didn't centralize certain level of governance before introducing measures that affected the EU i.e. the Eurozone. Trusting too much on members doing their homework often ends in members dragging feet and forcing their citizens to go through a harsher period.

    This only matters in relation to GDP in that EU uses GDP values and dynamics against debt values as weight on wherever such decisions are prudent and/or warranted.
    The GDP isn't used because it's supposedly perfect but because it's a neutral and reliable anchor point, and because macro-economically there are not many other factors. It is often wrongly assumed that it's the sole value where deficits are measured against however that's wrong. It's more like a standard candle.

    Why none whatsoever? If one side can do it the other certainly can do it - and did. There were pro-Remain messages too.
    I didn't say none, I said: not everyone as opposed to your claim of "everyone". And, yes, no kidding: Eventually some individuals decided to mimick the same methods and would have to understand British humour in order to understand why some people did. It didn't happen on the same scale nor was it concerted efforts. It goes along with that the rational voice usually gets shouted down whoever can afford to scream the loudest.

    Why do you think remainers had less in their pockets exactly? There also was a lot of debunking going together with media coverage of NHS bus.
    Yes, the effects are notable. UK's people saw reason and abandoned the leave campaign...oh wait... You know there is a reason for why it is very lucrative to heavily fund populists from outside instead of the moderates.

    Loans do happen now and then.
    They don't happen. You get them granted for a given security. This security doesn't always have to be material assets.

    But you reject populists in the same way as you reject Yaroufakis - without seriously discussing merits of their approaches and why they gain popularity. Yaroufakis is example of how you would still reject them even if they had well-grounded plan, so it's hard to take complaints "but they don't have a plan!" seriously. It wouldn't change if they did (and some certainly do).
    No, I am not talking about Varoufakis, whose plans did have merits but I am not a neoliberal or in charge of finances so I didn't have a say. His off-putting way was one factor for why the Eurozone partners - whom Germany has shielded - didn't really get too friendly with him. I am however talking about right-wing nationalists who harbor factions that promote reactionary thinking paired with colours of fascism from a bygone era who are nothing like the leftwing politician Yannis Varoufakis, and whose most vitriolic mouthpieces couldn't hold a candle with him. Their programmes are completely devoid of even basic ideas in a lot of areas, say social politics, science and education - well aside from wanting to promote climate change denial.

    "Known" how exactly? How do you convince politicians/people of this knowledge being true without those politicians trying alternatives?
    What exactly? The entire catalog of structural issues beginning with their banking system? I am not sure where you've been the last twenty years but there was a time when these issues existed and Italian voters put their hopes in a guy who was basically Italy's version of Donald Trump. Now that the train wreck has ran off the rails and is hurling towards recession of course people are sick and tired and more likely to vote for anyone promising to fix 'their' situation, whatever it will be and it is certainly related to immigrants, instead of the root causes that got them into it in the first place.

    Same can be told about Germany - trying to keep EU together and unchanging on some points at any cost. Even if that cost is UK leaving.

    The result over decades will probably be not EU dissolution but "core EU" that actually shares those cherished values remaining and sides splintering into different alliances; or keeping EU together but those values being compromised upon.
    Germany and France, and the Netherlands, and actually anyone else in the EU that has now seen the situation unfold. Why shouldn't EU members not try to keep the EU together? Why is it the same thing as a non-EU member like Russia interfering from outside? This doesn't make much sense, even less so considering that the only change Russia would be craving for is an utter breakup. The last thing you'd want is an EU reforming, which is coming but it's not a project that is completed overnight. It also doesn't matter whether mistakes have been made or not - there is not a single geopolitical compound on this globe that hasn't gone through some difficult stages. The EU is not just some bunch of loose values, it's also a project, something that actually has stood for warranting peace and overcoming ancient rivalries. Germany and France were bitter rivals for centuries - it's good to have that being a thing of the past. Wouldn't you agree?
    Last edited by Ravenblade; 2019-02-28 at 11:15 PM.
    WoW: Crowcloak (Druid) & Neesheya (Paladin) @ Sylvanas EU (/ˈkaZHo͞oəl/) | GW2: Siqqa (Asura Engineer) @ Piken Square EU
    If builders built houses the way programmers built programs,the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization. - Weinberg's 2nd law

    He seeks them here, he seeks them there, he seeks those lupins everywhere!


  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenblade View Post
    No, actually Cameron simply pokered too high because he underestimated the sceptics. He didn't give a lot room for preparations, people stumbled into it in part believing it's some kind of joke and in part unable to foresee the effects. In addition they set the bar for an accepted majority let alone participation too low. The public debate was also instantly hijacked by leavers first since they had a head-start with an existing Eurosceptic faction within the UKIP. It was a premade disaster. It was also within the EU's right to put thumbscrews on from the start in order to deter members from "simply leaving" through populism-spurred *exits. A lot leavers especially those depending on speedy transits are already having second thoughts.
    As far as i see Cameron only had to make high-stake offer of referendum to win election because all previous initiatives with EU that could placate voters with alternative solutions failed, resulting in UKIP support growing. And so he felt if he didn't do it his chances were slim. If he'd got what he wanted he wouldn't have to.

    Debate wasn't "hijacked" - that debate was already going for several decades. It never stopped. Farage was UKIP's MP from 1999. UKIP was founded in 1993, and got roots from 1991 Anti-Federalist league. UK had Referendum Party in 1990s too (which dissolved when it's founder/financier died). 2016 Referendum happened because UKIP was already gaining ground in quite obvious way, and EU actions fed them.

    If he would postpone it then, given EU attitude, they'd keep getting more votes and referendum would still happen later - possibly with even more disastrous percentages. He gambled when his chances still looked decent enough and lost.

    If Italy would have fixed their situation a decade ago they wouldn't need to make this kind of costly promise on the verge of recession. The problem was that the EU didn't centralize certain level of governance before introducing measures that affected the EU i.e. the Eurozone. Trusting too much on members doing their homework often ends in members dragging feet and forcing their citizens to go through a harsher period.
    Why did they had to "fix" that if it worked for them until crisis?

    Did EU enact regulatory measures over which it had no capability for oversight? Then you could see it as setting up for failure (and surely there were plenty of warnings around as usual?) which then was used to grab more regulatory/oversight power to EU.

    Why wouldn't you make EU that don't need such powers to function?

    One of the problems seems to be that EU is loath to relinquish those (post-)"emergency" powers/decisions once it got them, and "consensus" helps that. Everyone agrees that something should be done in/after emergency... then once emergency is over, everyone's opinions split again, and with urgency gone replacing previous decisions becomes much harder (though not impossible).

    It always looks like movement toward more regulation. Maybe it's time for pendulum to swing another way.

    The GDP isn't used because it's supposedly perfect but because it's a neutral and reliable anchor point, and because macro-economically there are not many other factors. It is often wrongly assumed that it's the sole value where deficits are measured against however that's wrong. It's more like a standard candle.
    I didn't say it is always sole value. But maybe it is a bit too important for such one-dimensional measure.

    I didn't say none, I said: not everyone as opposed to your claim of "everyone". And, yes, no kidding: Eventually some individuals decided to mimick the same methods and would have to understand British humour in order to understand why some people did. It didn't happen on the same scale nor was it concerted efforts. It goes along with that the rational voice usually gets shouted down whoever can afford to scream the loudest.
    It is irrational to assume that rationality can win without any effort just by virtue of being rational. Highway robber also can have perfectly rational reasoning; his aim is still to rob you. To follow someone's rationalization you got to build trust first. Clearly, despite winning election Cameron lacked such trust.

    UKIP weren't loudest at all; they just had one undiluted message they followed consistently for many years.

    Yes, the effects are notable. UK's people saw reason and abandoned the leave campaign...oh wait... You know there is a reason for why it is very lucrative to heavily fund populists from outside instead of the moderates.
    It isn't function of funding. No, being loudest alone isn't enough.

    Questions people seen was more like:
    "Don't you like what you have now?" -- nope, clearly not.
    "Do you trust those Leavers more then us?" ... guess what.

    If you think it isn't EU job to build up trust, then people will keep distrusting it - and voting on it, given an option. And all EU efforts currently seem to be aimed at not giving such option again rather then proving themselves.

    They don't happen. You get them granted for a given security. This security doesn't always have to be material assets.
    Again, French banks refused to provide loans despite FN having all guarantees in place. From Russian court case on that bank we even know they paid those loans diligently - they didn't just grab cash and run with it, so they weren't lying.

    No, I am not talking about Varoufakis, whose plans did have merits but I am not a neoliberal or in charge of finances so I didn't have a say. His off-putting way was one factor for why the Eurozone partners - whom Germany has shielded - didn't really get too friendly with him.
    What off-putting has to do with merits of any proposal? If that is so important, is that really rational for EU to decide fates of entire country on charm of single minister alone?

    ...and then you wonder why rationality didn't win in Brexit?

    I am however talking about right-wing nationalists who harbor factions that promote reactionary thinking paired with colours of fascism from a bygone era who are nothing like the leftwing politician Yannis Varoufakis, and whose most vitriolic mouthpieces couldn't hold a candle with him. Their programmes are completely devoid of even basic ideas in a lot of areas, say social politics, science and education - well aside from wanting to promote climate change denial.
    Well, could you point me which ones do you think about specifically? So that i could check their programmes for myself to see if that is fair assessment?


    What exactly? The entire catalog of structural issues beginning with their banking system? I am not sure where you've been the last twenty years but there was a time when these issues existed and Italian voters put their hopes in a guy who was basically Italy's version of Donald Trump. Now that the train wreck has ran off the rails and is hurling towards recession of course people are sick and tired and more likely to vote for anyone promising to fix 'their' situation, whatever it will be and it is certainly related to immigrants, instead of the root causes that got them into it in the first place.
    Migrants definitely aren't helping, so why shouldn't they address that?

    Banking systems that are plagued by systemic issues should be allowed to fail. As far as i see that is less painful option long-term then alternatives.

    Germany and France, and the Netherlands, and actually anyone else in the EU that has now seen the situation unfold. Why shouldn't EU members not try to keep the EU together? Why is it the same thing as a non-EU member like Russia interfering from outside? This doesn't make much sense, even less so considering that the only change Russia would be craving for is an utter breakup.
    No, Russia would be perfectly fine with sanctions being dropped and trade resuming. EU breakup only looks enticing because EU is so inflexible. If EU would change, so could Russian approach. But, as we see above, the problem is main EU forces unwillingness to change.

    It's their way or the highway. ...Well, aiming at EU breakup is fine when you choose highway route.

    The last thing you'd want is an EU reforming, which is coming but it's not a project that is completed overnight. It also doesn't matter whether mistakes have been made or not - there is not a single geopolitical compound on this globe that hasn't gone through some difficult stages. The EU is not just some bunch of loose values, it's also a project, something that actually has stood for warranting peace and overcoming ancient rivalries. Germany and France were bitter rivals for centuries - it's good to have that being a thing of the past. Wouldn't you agree?
    UK and Germany/France were bitter rivals for centuries as well, yet somehow you felt that pushing them out was preferable to acceding to their demands.

    And once out they can join Russia in "undermining" EU and trying to change it to their liking - as would by typical historical UK behavior they exhibited even while being EU member. Since they still got a lot of influence and are certainly not beyond covert and overt influence operations (as we've seen with stuff like Integrity Initiative).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •