European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1102

On May 29 2018 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:
National politicians blaming the EU for their homegrown problems, name a more iconic duo

How in god's name is it Europe's problem that the Italian President is unelected and can veto things?

On May 29 2018 07:49 Nyxisto wrote:
The nexus of the problem is that people like Varoufakis expected to storm into the office like some sort of renegade revolutionary were faced with opposition on all fronts, and are now angry that they got to experience the reality of politics within a union of 500 million people. That's what pisses him off about the EU.

He came into office on the back of grandiose promises, noticed too late that negotiating is actually difficult, jumped on his motorbike and drove off into the sunset and now is on a warpath with the European Union and the powers that be. It's a childish attitude really to the detriment of the Greek people. Individuals like Varoufakis would do better in entertainment than in politics.

Of course causing problems for the Eurozone is going to trigger a backlash if you're literally part of the Eurozone to begin with. Is that supposed to be unexpected?

On May 29 2018 07:59 TheDwf wrote:

You dodge. But what say you? Do you approve the decision of a single, unelected bureaucrat to basically sit on the results of a sovereign vote, and choose an IMF brute for the transition on top of that?

On May 29 2018 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:


Sure, if you've committed yourself to be a member of the European Union you have taken on the obligation to accept the institutions and bureaucrats of the European Union with all the rules and organisations that it entails.

If a country is unwilling to accept this, they can leave as we have seen in the UK. If Italy thinks it is a bad trade for them to be part of the Union, national politics will reflect that. But it is not the EU's fault that pro-European Italian politicians (in this case the president) oppose a decision by anti-European incumbents. That's an Italian matter.

On May 29 2018 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:


Sure, if you've committed yourself to be a member of the European Union you have taken on the obligation to accept the institutions and bureaucrats of the European Union with all the rules and organisations that it entails.

If a country is unwilling to accept this, they can leave as we have seen in the UK. If Italy thinks it is a bad trade for them to be part of the Union, national politics will reflect that. But it is not the EU's fault that pro-European Italian politicians (in this case the president) oppose a decision by anti-European incumbents. That's an Italian matter.

On May 29 2018 08:22 Nyxisto wrote:


Sure, if you've committed yourself to be a member of the European Union you have taken on the obligation to accept the institutions and bureaucrats of the European Union with all the rules and organisations that it entails.

If a country is unwilling to accept this, they can leave as we have seen in the UK. If Italy thinks it is a bad trade for them to be part of the Union, national politics will reflect that. But it is not the EU's fault that pro-European Italian politicians (in this case the president) oppose a decision by anti-European incumbents. That's an Italian matter.

On May 29 2018 14:33 xM(Z wrote:
or, OR!, if you have taken on the obligation to have a second amendment, then arm your godamnpeople ... or not.

what the pro-EU groupies are missing when making these kind of arguments, 'but if you agreed ...', 'you can just leave ...', 'it can't be EU's fault ...'(which is a pure ideological factoid), is that when the whole voting for an EU/agreeing with an EU legislature/rule was going on, the fucking game was rigged: both the left and the right political parties across the whole fucking Europe had deals and agreements to just accept EU as is.
let that shit sink in: when the EU union was agreed upon(past its initial members), the whole 'european' political spectrum was in on it. one had no viable option, via elections, to not agree with it, to not accept it.

now that you have a left and a right(more or less) across the EU, after you move past political declarations and politicized populist stances, you realize the beauty of what the fuck is going on: pragmatist at its core, this is just a fight for control of the EU between two actual sides.

how many ate shit about leaving the EU and after being elected/gaining power they did nothing?; all of them, because they knew it was never about leaving but about controlling the EU.
(mind you here, UK left before all of this infighting broke out; that's why it regrets it now. UK could've ended up spearheading the takeover.)

On May 29 2018 18:29 VHbb wrote:
Thanks for the data The Dwf. I am not at all an expert in polling, but I am wondering how do they get a representative sample with only 2100 interviews for the poll (I'm genuinely asking, I'm not trying to bring down the data). It would be great to have a +/- stat. uncertainty on those numbers.

I feel that it can be a bit misleading to frame these numbers *only* in the context of pro-EU / against-EU.
Europe was never a *strong* point of the electoral campaign (of course Lega was against, but it was not the point on which they built their campaign), and most importantly it was *not* in the "contract" that Lega and M5S drafted to form the first attempt of government.

What I find "strange" for me is that there appears to be NO political force other than Lega and M5S that is offering any alternatives. We are going to vote again in 2-3 months, but I'm not seeing any unite force from the center-left. I know it's a natural consequence of PD's politics in the last year/months, it's not "surprising", but I find honestly out of place.. I usually vote "against" someone (Berlusconi, Lega, etc.) but there's always a realistic alternative (generally PD): not it appears there's nothing.

On May 29 2018 19:19 Zaros wrote:


UK does not regret leaving the EU, attitudes haven't really moved since the referendum most people just want to get it over with and leave.

While both M5S and the Lega are traditionally Eurosceptic, their individual and joint programmes neither called for an exit from the European single currency or the EU. Instead, the coalition’s objective was to seek a renegotiation of European treaties. Giuseppe Conte, the law professor nominated to lead their administration, who resigned on Sunday evening after Mattarella vetoed Savona, had also said that Italy would remain within the EU.

Francesco Giavazzi, an economics professor at Bocconi University in Milan, said that by backing Savona, Salvini had intended to ensure that the coalition’s bid for government failed and that fresh elections would be called.

“His tactic from day one was to go back to elections,” said Giavazzi. “He did it in such a way he knew the president would refuse.”

Salvini’s popularity has increased since the March vote, but it remains to be seen if his gamble will pay off.

“Salvini is a very good campaigner who has never finished anything in his life,” said Giavazzi. “He knows that if he campaigns, he wins, but if you give him a real job to do it soon becomes clear that he’s unable to do it.”

About 57% of Italians wanted a government whose programme included generous tax cuts, a universal basic income and a raft of hardline policies against illegal immigrants.

After the events of Sunday and Monday, what they have now is another temporary, unelected prime minister who is a europhile. Carlo Cottarelli, a former director at the International Monetary Fund, has been tasked by Mattarella with forming an interim government to steer the country towards another election.

But his administration is expected to lose a vote of confidence in parliament, meaning the ballot could now be held as early as September.