|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 31 2019 17:12 xM(Z wrote:- https://www.newsweek.com/russia-belarus-unite-absorb-union-vladimir-putin-alexander-lukashenko-1333800 Show nested quote +The president of Belarus has said the country is ready to unite with long-time ally Russia, raising the prospect of Moscow absorbing the eastern European dictatorship on the borders of Poland and Lithuania.
President Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the former Soviet state since the presidential post was created in 1994, said Friday his nation was ready to join with Russia, The Moscow Times reported.
Lukashenko made the comments on the third and final day of bilateral talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rumors have long abounded that Belarus could be absorbed into Russia under Putin’s watch, deepening the “union state” arrangement that has existed between them since the late 1990s.
“The two of us could unite tomorrow, no problem,” Lukashenko said Friday. “But are you—Russians and Belarusians—ready for it?” the president added, according to Interfax. “We’re ready to unite and consolidate our efforts, states and peoples as far as we’re ready.”
Putin tried to question the very concept of independent states in his subsequent remarks. “There are simply no fully independent states in the world. The modern world is a world of interdependence,” the Russian president said. you look at that and say ???, but it's not like anyone felt less confused/dismissive before russians went into Urk, or pre-during their Crimea move.
I was convinced the annexation of Belarus won't happen before Lukashenko's death or senility. I think Lukashenko just wanted to say "it's techinically possible for our countries to unite tomorrow, but it's not going to happen until the Belarusians (that is me) are ready for it".
|
that's a sensible conviction to have but you also need to know that all it took for Crimea or E-Ukr things to happen was for <parties that could have a say> to do nothing; think that for it to happen, all you need is inaction ...
|
On March 31 2019 23:35 xM(Z wrote:that's a sensible conviction to have but you also need to know that all it took for Crimea or E-Ukr things to happen was for <parties that could have a say> to do nothing; think that for it to happen, all you need is inaction ...
No. You need an aggressor and then people doing nothing. Never forget the aggressor which has the biggest impact. Or is it so inherent that there will always be one? In this case the perpetually expanding Russia.
|
it's obviously inherent; without an aggressor there wouldn't even be an argument to be had.
you could play around with contexts and see the aggression as reactionary or preventive, but that doesn't change the forceful nature of the initial transgression.
|
Looks like the conservative ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ coalition in Austria has their first bigger quarrels.
After it became known that the Christchurch terrorist donated 1500€ to the leader of the Austrian Group Identitaire and seems to have other connections to them as well the conservative chancellor Kurz has told the FPÖ to distance themselves from that group.
The FPÖ is obviously strongly intervined with the GI and their Austrian vice-chancellor Strache has defended them and their actionism on several occasions and also met with them.
Tweets of that kind have lately been removed from FPÖ accounts.
Furthermore the chancellor wants the Austrian security offices to report to him and the vice-chancellor in addition to their far-right ministries. It seems like he is getting quite some pressure from his EPP partners these days concerning all the issues around FPÖ interior minister Kickl.
The FPÖ has so far cooperated on those issues, but quite some of their fans on the internet are not so amused about the "new left course" of the chancellor.
|
On March 31 2019 20:09 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2019 06:51 TheDwf wrote:On March 31 2019 05:06 Artisreal wrote:
Is there any connection between the black block and the yellow vests movement? Let us say that at key times, people who make up the black block will join the demonstrations to fight the police. It's hard to tell if they're here every week since they don't necessarily engage in violent action. Maybe they're here all the time, but you can't know until they "go black block". At first the deeds and methods of the "black blocks" were fairly rejected among the yellow vests; but given cop violence and Macron's deafness, protest violence is now more tolerated (it's increasingly seen as the only way to get heard). A known figure of the yellow vests even sent a questionnaire to "black blocks" to know their motivations, ideas, etc., and it was answered. Thank you, I've always interpreted the destruction to be disconnected from the actual yellow vests, albeit the police violence drawing justification from the former to beat up the latter. This kind of supports my impression, I'd say. Is there any resistance in the movement to distance oneself from right wing and violent groups or is it still a rather heterogenous movement with many local heads (or none?) rather than a more central organization? I suspect Paris is different from the rest of the country as well?
At the beginning of the movement, in the first acts, most of the protest violence did come from "real" yellow vests—I mean, not previous militants who put on a yellow vest. Now I don't know, there are probably more far-left people behind it.
If you refer to far-right groups (who were always marginal, they never controlled the movement), yes I would say that there are less of them. In various places, antifascists and sometimes random yellow vests expelled them from the demonstrations numerous times. It could be... some spectacle:
+ Show Spoiler +
(Fascists on the left, antifascists on the right. The scene is from February.)
The movement is still heterogeneous and decentralized, yes. There are known figures who run big Facebook pages with lots of followers, but no formal leaders (they are adamantly refused). There is no centralized instance of decision but calls on the Internet to come in such or such city are heard.
The movement was born out of Paris. The city is quite gentrified, and obviously bourgeois are not in the movement (and the intermediary class not so much). I think that most people who demonstrate in Paris come from the region or from the rest of the country rather than the city itself.
On April 02 2019 22:32 Big J wrote:
Looks like the conservative ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ coalition in Austria has their first bigger quarrels.
After it became known that the Christchurch terrorist donated 1500€ to the leader of the Austrian Group Identitaire and seems to have other connections to them as well the conservative chancellor Kurz has told the FPÖ to distance themselves from that group.
The FPÖ is obviously strongly intervined with the GI and their Austrian vice-chancellor Strache has defended them and their actionism on several occasions and also met with them.
Tweets of that kind have lately been removed from FPÖ accounts.
Furthermore the chancellor wants the Austrian security offices to report to him and the vice-chancellor in addition to their far-right ministries. It seems like he is getting quite some pressure from his EPP partners these days concerning all the issues around FPÖ interior minister Kickl.
The FPÖ has so far cooperated on those issues, but quite some of their fans on the internet are not so amused about the "new left course" of the chancellor.
We learnt that the white supremacist of Christchurch also donated to the French branch (Génération Identitaire). The government is considering dissolving this fascist group.
|
- Europe's right-wing populist parties(called euroskeptics/anti-immigration/far-right) are trying to unite under one block the members of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) and Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD). it's estimated that they could become the third or even second most powerful group in European Parliament.
the efforts are spearheaded by Italy's League Party seconded by groups from Belgium, Germany, Austria, France, hoping for Poland's PiS and others.
- lawyers on behalf of Foundation Human Rights for Eritreans (FHRE) are threatening to sue EU on claim of funding Eritrea 'forced labour' project, violating its human rights charter. Officially, Eritrea requires people to undertake 18 months of national service, but this period was extended indefinitely in the wake of the Ethiopia-Eritrea war that ended in 2000. A 2016 UN human rights investigation said conscripts were used as "forced labour".... Eritrea has said that this is a distorted picture of what is going on and has denied that there is indefinite national service. The government has not commented on what the FHRE is saying. There was hope that it would return to its original 18-month period following the signing of a peace deal with Ethiopia last year, but this has not yet happened. ... In its explanation of the project, the EU acknowledges that people on national service will be used but it says they will be paid and the pay rates have recently been increased. It adds that the issue is the subject of "heightened dialogue" with Eritrea. "The EU does not support indefinite national service in Eritrea. Human rights are at the core of all our policies and it is misleading to suggest we are supporting forced labour," an EU spokesman said in an emailed statement to the BBC. Sources in Eritrea have told the BBC that since 2016 soldiers have nominally received $120 a month, but after deductions, including paying for rations, they personally get paid just $17 a month and their family gets $40. There has been no recent pay increase, the BBC understands .
others: - The U.S. has revoked the visa of the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor, weeks after warning it would take such an action against anyone from the ICC who is investigating allegations that U.S. personnel might have committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Bensouda has asked the Hague-based court to open a full investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, including any that might have been committed by Americans and Afghan government forces.
While the U.S. claims its citizens and military personnel are outside of the ICC's jurisdiction, the court says Afghanistan is within its purview because the country ratified the Rome Statute, which established the court, in early 2003.
"The ICC therefore has jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan or by its nationals from 1 May 2003 onwards," the court said in its summary of a preliminary examination in 2013.
|
Anyone thought Article 13 was a badly designed? Then how does that sound:
The Austrian government intends to force all* online forums and comment sections to collect data on names and adresses. Those names and addresses can then be requested by authorities and private people in case of hate speech.
Besides immidiate concerns about data protection rights, costs for platforms like newspapers etc., this has sparked an immidiate discussion if this law is even going to be OK with EU law. In the EU it is specified, that every member state has to accept the privacy regulations of service providers located in other states. Which means every platform outside of Austria must not fall under that regulation. Since that means that foreign service providers would be treated better than Austrian ones, the equal treatment law should prohibit the law to apply to Austrian service providers.
*websites that mainly serve commerce purposes and that are too small (like far-right networks) or too young are exempted.
Edit: I forgot one of the most scary parts: The websites are obliged to demand some form of verification of the names and addresses they have to obtain. Sounds like I should hand over a copy of my passport to google, the CIA and the Chinese government, depending on which services I use which happen to have comment sections. (though that may be a stretch)
|
On April 11 2019 02:38 Big J wrote:
Anyone thought Article 13 was a badly designed? Then how does that sound:
The Austrian government intends to force all* online forums and comment sections to collect data on names and adresses. Those names and adresses can then be requested by authorities and private people in case of hate speech.
Besides immidiate concerns about data protection rights, costs for platforms like newspapers etc., this has sparked an immidiate discussion if this law is even going to be OK with EU law. In the EU it is specified, that every member state has to accept the privacy regulations of service providers located in other states. Which means every platform outside of Austria must not fall under that regulation. Since that means that foreign service providers would be treated better than Austrian ones, the equal treatment law should prohibit the law to apply to Austrian service providers.
*websites that mainly serve commerce purposes and that are too small (like far-right networks) or too young are exempted.
Nice. That doesn't sound scary at all. China style citizen points next?
I think you posted a while back about FPÖ taking a lot of power in the Austrian security/intelligence agencies? Today it's reported in Dutch news that Dutch and British intelligence are currently not sharing info with the Austrian services any more because of concerns of data leaks to the Kremlin.
The less shared intelligence, the less effective they can be so this is not a good thing for Europe.
|
On April 11 2019 03:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2019 02:38 Big J wrote:
Anyone thought Article 13 was a badly designed? Then how does that sound:
The Austrian government intends to force all* online forums and comment sections to collect data on names and adresses. Those names and adresses can then be requested by authorities and private people in case of hate speech.
Besides immidiate concerns about data protection rights, costs for platforms like newspapers etc., this has sparked an immidiate discussion if this law is even going to be OK with EU law. In the EU it is specified, that every member state has to accept the privacy regulations of service providers located in other states. Which means every platform outside of Austria must not fall under that regulation. Since that means that foreign service providers would be treated better than Austrian ones, the equal treatment law should prohibit the law to apply to Austrian service providers.
*websites that mainly serve commerce purposes and that are too small (like far-right networks) or too young are exempted. Nice. That doesn't sound scary at all. China style citizen points next? I think you posted a while back about FPÖ taking a lot of power in the Austrian security/intelligence agencies? Today it's reported in Dutch news that Dutch and British intelligence are currently not sharing info with the Austrian services any more because of concerns of data leaks to the Kremlin. The less shared intelligence, the less effective they can be so this is not a good thing for Europe.
Yeah, that lockout from cooperation has been a rumour in Austrian newspapers for quite some time now.
Also as I wrote some days ago the coalition has had a heavy infight about the FPÖ connections to the far-right Génération Identitaire.
Also it is said that in the raid on the security agency BVT, which was the trigger event for other agencies cutting their cooperation, the FPÖ took a lot of material on far-right groups with them, including connections between them and the Génération Identitaire.
So what did the government do yesterday? They used a far-right concert from a year ago as a reason to let the BVT raid some Nazis, to make it look like the BVT is completely OK and the government actively working against the far-right. Not even the center-right newspapers are actively trying to get behind that scheme, while it is being quite openly mocked upon by liberal and left-wing newspapers. Why did it take them so long? According to the government the investigating prosecutor was chronically ill for the past year. lol.
And about your China reference. Our current parliament president, former interior minister, Wolfgang Sobotka (ÖVP) was recently praising China for showing no inhibitions in questions of data protection when analyzing their people. So no, this is not far fetched, this is conservative politics in middle europe 2019, not a nationalist, state communist or far-right one.
|
Anybody willing to enlighten me why the EU decided to give the UK more time? Seems like they are giving all their good cards away and into the hand of a British parliament which has shown zero interest in taking the deal the EU wants, or in developing a deal they themselves want instead.
Before the EU could use the deadline to force the Brits to decide between an unregulated Brexit or the deal they proposed. Now the British get to be part of the new EU elections and can block stuff in the EU parliament until Halloween to force another delay or a new deal by blocking everything. Or block everything anyways since one half wants to exit and the other half does not, making it impossible to satisfy both sides.
I get that an unregulated Brexit would be bad for the EU too and that that's a scenario the EU likely wants to evade. But it's not like the British parliament was two days short of a solution, they are stuck for months now, another delay isn't going to magically solve everything.
Did the EU just give up their strong position for free because they got cold feet or am I missing something?
|
The EU is in the same position it was before the extension. This time they now have PR cover for their nations that they weren't the problem in brexit.
|
1. The single market with the UK is better than the single market without the UK.
2. The British government isn't going to block anything and even if it did decide to block something on their own, that would backfire horribly.
3. No one should care about British MEPs trying to block anything, they're just MEPs. We probably wouldn't even notice a change because British MEPs already lose the most votes in the European Parliament.
|
The single market is not a zero sum game. The EU hasn't given up their position, they merely extended the time for UK to decide between the options EU has offered. I too am suprised that the EU didn't simply didn't let UK to go away and suicide in peace. There is no guarantee that MEP's from UK can or will block anything or evertything the EU does; the only ones who are saying that are vehement no-deal brexiteers MPs.
And it's not unregulated or the deal proposed. No-deal is subject to regulations. The deal proposed is commonly referred to as May's deal. And lastly there is always the option to revoke Article 50, as unlikely as it seems.
|
At this point I’m betting that the UK drags this out until 2022 when new elections are held and the UK people are so desperate to end this non-sense that they vote to revoke article 50. But this group of clowns are never going agree to anything. They will have their hand forced by the EU or elections, whichever comes first.
|
EU shifts towards China https://www.dw.com/en/eu-announces-breakthrough-on-trade-with-china/a-48269078 China has vowed at a summit with the EU not to make companies share intellectual property. The talks marked a significant shift for Beijing amid growing concerns about China's influence in Europe.
...
China has vowed at a summit with the EU not to make companies share intellectual property. The talks marked a significant shift for Beijing amid growing concerns about China's influence in Europe.
The European Union and China pledged to strengthen their trade relationship and work towards opening up China's economy for foreign investors at a summit in Brussels on Tuesday.
The annual summit comes a month after the European Commission branded Beijing a "systemic rival" over what they said were unfair trade practices, and amid an ongoing US trade war with China.
The main takeaways from the summit:
In a seven-page joint declaration that was signed after last-minute negotiations, Brussels and Beijing agreed to the following changes:
- A commitment toward "broader" and "non-discriminatory" market access, in wording that the EU saw as a shift from China on opening up its economy.
- On surrendering intellectual property to gain access to China's market, both sides agreed "there should not be a forced transfer of technology."
- Increase efforts to strengthen international rules against state subsidies for industries.
i think some of it was forced by <circumstances>, including Trump's US, the 16+1 initiative(16 CEEC countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia + China that showed good success, Italy signing China's new silk road pact(Reuters put its worth at ~€20billions), some 5G(network) fears, unknowns regarding Huawei, and probably some more happenings on the same vein.
in Libya shit is heating up with libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar(backed by Russia) pushing into the capital, Tripoli(thousands displaced, about 60 reported deaths).
initially, when the war escalated(~4th april), the EU issued the so called The Libya statement condemning the move but as of yesterday, the statement was reduced to/downgraded(i don't know how that works) to a personal(?) statement of/on behalf of EU foreign relations chief Federica Mogherini because France interfered.France has blunted an EU call for Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar to halt his attack on Tripoli, despite Nato concern on Haftar's strategic threat.
EU states had aimed to call "on all parties to immediately cease all military operations" and for Haftar to "withdraw" his forces.
They had also aimed to say his offensive was "endangering civilians, including migrants and refugees ... with the risk of serious consequences for Libya and the wider region, including the terrorist threat".
But that statement was downgraded on Thursday (11 April) to a declaration on behalf of EU foreign relations chief Federica Mogherini only after France objected, the Reuters news agency said, citing diplomatic sources.
The EU is concerned that a civil war in Libya between Haftar and the EU and UN-backed government in Tripoli could prompt more of the 660,000 migrants in Libya to flee to Europe.
The fighting in the suburbs of Tripoli has killed at least 56 people and displaced 8,000 in recent days, the UN said. as it turned out,France has built links with Haftar in order to protect its oil interests in the country, but Italy, the EU's other main player in the conflict, has backed the Government of National Accord (GNA) led by Fayez al-Serraj. "We need more unity, we need to speak with only one voice as Europeans, but unfortunately Europeans are divided on this," the Italian president of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, said on Wednesday. The EU divergence also comes amid Nato concern on Haftar's Russian links .
|
EU a collection of different nations with different interests in some areas shocker. What's the problem x)mz?
|
meh, was going to write something but you're not worth it; your cynicism is shit and not worth the bother.
|
On April 13 2019 05:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
EU a collection of different nations with different interests in some areas shocker. What's the problem x)mz?
He is like the Kool-Aid man crashing into the room and yelling “Did you know the EU doesn’t agree on everything all the time?”
|
good to know you're as useless as ever.
people are dying and will keep dying because EU can't get their shit right but you know, that's just different countries having different interests, no big deal.
it even gets Dangermousecatdog and Plansix seal of approval!; how cute.
User was warned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
