EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 329
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18401 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
I'm unsure how that is an argument? Would you care to expand? I.e. why should we have "more EU" if the people all living in (supposedly) democracies are increasingly nationalistic? That seems like a counter-argument as enforcing more EU would be against the will of the people - what am I missing? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
if US would've played on the nationalism of the old Eastern block, it could've had Russia sucking at its teat now; instead, they did their stupid divide and conquer shenanigans(playing with the extremists) which cost them years and years of progression. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On November 02 2015 20:29 Acrofales wrote: "What did the Romans ever do for us?" "Is there nothing more to history than the praise of Rome?" | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On November 03 2015 18:04 Souma wrote: How come the British House of Lords is still a thing? o.O Genuine question. Same reason the British (or almost any other European) monarchy is still a thing. No real power, but it looks nice to have a national voice that is 'above politics' | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6306 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9330 Posts
On November 04 2015 02:01 Nyxisto wrote: Isn't the house of lords the regular upper chamber of the parliament? I'd call that pretty far from heaving "no power". Just because they're called the upper chamber doesn't mean they have power. Our upper chamber (Senate) also doesn't have any real power and people often propose getting rid of it but it would be a hassle so we just leave it as it is. They can be kind of useful in correcting bad laws but they can't do anything without the lower chamber's approval. I'm guessing it's like this in UK too. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11945 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:01 LegalLord wrote: Swapping leaders every X years is not exactly a good way to breed experience. Tyranny is also a concern though, so it's clear that we need both. Its not clear that experience in governing is actually a positive though. In Washington DC, Ottowa, or Brussels (the three I'm most familiar with) the opposite seems to be true because long stays at the seat of power seems to foment an echo chamber mindset. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/oesterreich-grosse-koalition-verschaerft-asylrecht-a-1060939.html In English: http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/austria-to-put-time-limit-on-refugee-protection-a-47174950.html Of course, humanitarian organisations, left-wing parties and the UNHCR are not amused. It seems to me that the Greek crisis earlier this year and the refugee crisis now have completely polarised the political landscape. It's incredibly hard to find moderate voices in the whole debate. Personally I'd rather see countries invest heavily in assimilating (rather than integrating) the refugees into society by investing heavily in their and their children's education, but since the whole of western Europe is in budget consilidation mode (and will be for the forseeable future) the opposite is happening: countries want to spend as little money on refugees as possible. I'm also still convinced that well-funded and co-operatively run hotspots in the EU border countries is a better solution that tolerating the current streams of what are essentially illegal immigrants we have absolutely no control over. But then again, that'd require the EU member states to actually agree on something, which at this point in time is extremely unlikely (I can't believe than I'm getting as cynical as WhiteDog what EU affairs are concerned ;-) ). | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:22 Simberto wrote: Also, it is important to note that the british skipped that part in history where you get rid of the monarchy, proclaim that you are a democracy now and either murder all of the aristocracy or say that they don't have any power anymore and legally aren't aristocracy, after which you proceed to elect a dictator and start a gigantic war. French are the worst, they kinda did both :p | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
Also, basic economico-diplomatic importance on the international level. Look how not influential the European countries are separately, even Germany is laughable and can only give an illusion of importance when compared with the big guns that are the US, Russia and China ; the only way to resolve this is with a more unified Europe. And I won't even talk about the military. "More Europe" is the only way to go if we want to avoid a disaster. | ||
| ||
