|
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 November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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.
More Europe is also not something your going to get almost any country to agree to.
Politicians might be willing but the people have no interest in giving up their sovereignty to a distant and undemocratic EU.
|
On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution.
Well ... It's mainly that England revolutions, when in doubt, slaughtered Irish catholics. It was bloody, but didn't target their people.
|
Volkswagen has said an internal investigation had revealed “unexplained inconsistencies” in the carbon dioxide emissions from 800,000 vehicles that could cost the company a further €2bn (£1.4bn).
The revelation comes after the carmaker’s admission in September that it rigged emissions tests for four-cylinder diesel engines on 11m cars worldwide, including almost 500,000 in the US. VW has set aside €6.7bn to cover the costs of recalling those vehicles.
It was not immediately clear whether the 800,000 vehicles with the newly discovered CO2 emission problems were among those already affected. Volkswagen did not identify which models were affected.
The carmarker did say the 800,000 were “predominantly vehicles with diesel engines”, raising the possibility for the first time that some Volkswagens with petrol-powered motors may also have emissions problems.
A VW spokesman did not immediately return a phone call seeking clarification.
Source
|
On November 04 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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. More Europe is also not something your going to get almost any country to agree to. Politicians might be willing but the people have no interest in giving up their sovereignty to a distant and undemocratic EU.
The people have no interest in becoming citizens of third-world countries in 50 years? I don't think so. I'd even say the people have more interest than the politicians in more Europe (note that I'm not talking specifically about the EU, which is only one possible iteration of the European ideal, and clearly not the best), as the politicians probably prefer Europe as it is now : it allows them to have more power locally, while also allowing them to justify their lack of competence on the EU.
|
On November 04 2015 05:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Volkswagen has said an internal investigation had revealed “unexplained inconsistencies” in the carbon dioxide emissions from 800,000 vehicles that could cost the company a further €2bn (£1.4bn).
The revelation comes after the carmaker’s admission in September that it rigged emissions tests for four-cylinder diesel engines on 11m cars worldwide, including almost 500,000 in the US. VW has set aside €6.7bn to cover the costs of recalling those vehicles.
It was not immediately clear whether the 800,000 vehicles with the newly discovered CO2 emission problems were among those already affected. Volkswagen did not identify which models were affected.
The carmarker did say the 800,000 were “predominantly vehicles with diesel engines”, raising the possibility for the first time that some Volkswagens with petrol-powered motors may also have emissions problems.
A VW spokesman did not immediately return a phone call seeking clarification. Source
You get caught red handed and your trying to use “unexplained inconsistencies”? Are you f*** kidding me?
Sigh, this is why we need to jail management when stuff like this happens because its already clear they don't feel an ounce of guilt over it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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.
people tend to have a very suspicious view of international institutions while having much less scrutiny of 'national' governments, especially with respect to 'corporate' interest capture.
but international instutions is also full of flaming liberals pushing for universalizing good humanist liberal values, including labor standards and environmental interests.
given globalization, the lower standards will prevail without itnerference from active, weighty units like the european commission.
|
On November 04 2015 05:33 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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. More Europe is also not something your going to get almost any country to agree to. Politicians might be willing but the people have no interest in giving up their sovereignty to a distant and undemocratic EU. The people have no interest in not becoming citizens of third-world countries in 50 years? I don't think so. I'd even say the people have more interest than the politicians in more Europe (note that I'm not talking specifically about the EU, which is only one possible iteration of the European ideal, and clearly not the best), as the politicians probably prefer Europe as it is now : it allows them to have more power locally, while also allowing them to justify their lack of competence on the EU.
you should take a deep breath then chill a bit(i think the bolded parts turn that phrase into the exact opposite of what you were trying to say).
there are more chances for Greece to end up a 3rd world country while still in the EU than lets say, Norway which isn't.
people seem to have an interest in EU because they were duped from the beginning(at least here) but the trust in EU+Germany has been on a downward spiral for years.
|
On November 04 2015 05:33 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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. More Europe is also not something your going to get almost any country to agree to. Politicians might be willing but the people have no interest in giving up their sovereignty to a distant and undemocratic EU. The people have no interest in not becoming citizens of third-world countries in 50 years? I don't think so. I'd even say the people have more interest than the politicians in more Europe (note that I'm not talking specifically about the EU, which is only one possible iteration of the European ideal, and clearly not the best), as the politicians probably prefer Europe as it is now : it allows them to have more power locally, while also allowing them to justify their lack of competence on the EU.
Your hilarious hyperbole alone ruins any argument you were wanting to make.
Look at the rise of Anti EU sentiment in the last few years and with a strait face tell me people want more EU in their life right now.
|
On November 04 2015 04:55 maartendq wrote:Austria seeks to limit the duration a refugee can stay in the country, as well as tightens the rules for family renion: migrants on special refugee benefits ("subsidiary protection") will be unable to bring their families over for three years, and after three years their refugee status will be re-evaluated, and canceled if the country they are from is no longer considered unsafe by the authorities. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/oesterreich-grosse-koalition-verschaerft-asylrecht-a-1060939.htmlIn English: http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/austria-to-put-time-limit-on-refugee-protection-a-47174950.htmlOf 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 ;-) ).
I don't think changing asylum/immigration laws will help as long as Europe (as a whole or just particular member states) doesn't have a working deportation system. There will be more money left to help real refugees if we'll have effective means of stopping illegal economic immigration.
|
On November 04 2015 06:06 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:33 OtherWorld wrote:On November 04 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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. More Europe is also not something your going to get almost any country to agree to. Politicians might be willing but the people have no interest in giving up their sovereignty to a distant and undemocratic EU. The people have no interest in not becoming citizens of third-world countries in 50 years? I don't think so. I'd even say the people have more interest than the politicians in more Europe (note that I'm not talking specifically about the EU, which is only one possible iteration of the European ideal, and clearly not the best), as the politicians probably prefer Europe as it is now : it allows them to have more power locally, while also allowing them to justify their lack of competence on the EU. you should take a deep breath then chill a bit(i think the bolded parts turn that phrase into the exact opposite of what you were trying to say). there are more chances for Greece to end up a 3rd world country while still in the EU than lets say, Norway which isn't. people seem to have an interest in EU because they were duped from the beginning(at least here) but the trust in EU+Germany has been in a downward spiral for years.
Yeah sorry, I kinda fucked up on that one d:
I'm not talking about countries that are already in a very bad situation like Greece, I'm mostly talking about the countries in Europe that are in a OK situation : Germany, France, UK, Scandinavian countries, Benelux. I don't know enough about Eastern Europe to include them or not. Look at how they have almost 0 influence today : these countries would be unable to sustain a symetrical war effort on their own ; their voice on most international conflicts doesn't matter (thank god France and the UK are permanent member of the UN Security Council, at least) ; and - except maybe for Germany - their companies are being slowly bought by non-European people. Because these are the elements of power : military, diplomacy, economy. And culture, that's maybe the one domain in which European countries are influential internationally. Norway has only economy, and because of oil. I'd be very surprised to see Norway as rich - especially compared to the rest of Europe - in 50 years as now.
And I never denied trust in the EU was going down. It's the truth, no one can deny that.
On November 04 2015 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 05:33 OtherWorld wrote:On November 04 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2015 04:57 OtherWorld wrote:On November 02 2015 12:12 oneofthem wrote:On November 02 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:
But how do you exactly can, today, legitimize "more europe" ? On what ground ?
rise of nationalism for one. 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. More Europe is also not something your going to get almost any country to agree to. Politicians might be willing but the people have no interest in giving up their sovereignty to a distant and undemocratic EU. The people have no interest in not becoming citizens of third-world countries in 50 years? I don't think so. I'd even say the people have more interest than the politicians in more Europe (note that I'm not talking specifically about the EU, which is only one possible iteration of the European ideal, and clearly not the best), as the politicians probably prefer Europe as it is now : it allows them to have more power locally, while also allowing them to justify their lack of competence on the EU. Your hilarious hyperbole alone ruins any argument you were wanting to make. Look at the rise of Anti EU sentiment in the last few years and with a strait face tell me people want more EU in their life right now.
I specifically wrote "note that I'm not talking specifically about the EU, which is only one possible iteration of the European ideal, and clearly not the best". Europe =/= EU, you know? Besides, I never said people wanted more EU - or even Europe - in their life. I said that it was what is best for their future - not that it is what they want.
|
the future you envisioned for me, sucks.
mine looks like this: Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus(maybe?) and the Baltic States join together and create a buffer zone between East and West and get all the benefits from BRICS trade agreements and EU+US&Allies ones.
now that's a future.
|
I feel like you are a little misinformed concerning the state of the economy in the Scandinavian countries - to a degree which leads to faulty conclusions. All of Scandinavia will very likely remain fairly rich compared to the rest of EU in our lifetime - and you are welcome to come back and quote me on that in case I should be mistaken :p
|
in 50 years scandinavians will go extinct and arabs will fill their shoes. 
|
On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution.
Because the french were attacked by the entirety of europe ? And their aristocracy betrayed them ? The aristocracy was european already by the way and the rise (and unification) of nations was also a way for people to defend theirselves agains those a-national famillies and after against exterior forces (much like the rise of nationalism in europe is a defence against the mondialisation).
Modern arguments are in the same vein btw (they are aristocratic in a sense) : the international power of europe is not enough and we "need" to act collectively to weight in international politics, but in reality it has nothing to do with the masses for which China or the US are not a good exemple - the poor in China, the US or Russia are not better off than in switzerland.
|
I would argue that the poor in the US, China or Russia are massively worse off than in Switzerland (I would argue the same for the middle class...Scandinavia, Germany are most likely also better). The US used to be as good/better, but then went full on "companies are people/get rich or die trying".
Extreme globalisation does very little for the "common" people but is glorious for leaders/businesses. Too bad tickle down doesn't work.
Being a global super power is mainly one thing: Expensive. Expensive for yourself and your people. I don't really see the need for more europe to get a stronger army. Economic influence is allready huge and yes, europe should be able to defned itself. But playing worldpolice like the US? Nah, i rather have europe not being that stupid.
|
On November 04 2015 22:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution. Because the french were attacked by the entirety of europe ? And their aristocracy betrayed them ? The aristocracy was european already by the way and the rise (and unification) of nations was a way for people to defend theirselves agains those a-national famillies (much like the rise of nationalism in europe is a defence against the mondialisation). Modern arguments are in the same vein btw (they are aristocratic in a sense) : the international power of europe is not enough and we "need" to act collectively to weight in international politics, but in reality it has nothing to do with the masses for which China or the US are not a good exemple - the poor in China, the US or Russia are not better off than in switzerland.
The bloodshed during the French revolution was mostly revolutionary factions killing eachother while trying to gain/keep power (civil wars and executions). Wars against other nations did happen, but had a much lesser impact.
Unless you count Napoleon's conquests in the revolutionary wars, but then I'm not sure I would agree that poor Napoleon was attacked by all of Europe and defended himself.
|
On November 04 2015 22:10 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution. Because the french were attacked by the entirety of europe ? And their aristocracy betrayed them ? The aristocracy was european already by the way and the rise (and unification) of nations was a way for people to defend theirselves agains those a-national famillies (much like the rise of nationalism in europe is a defence against the mondialisation). Modern arguments are in the same vein btw (they are aristocratic in a sense) : the international power of europe is not enough and we "need" to act collectively to weight in international politics, but in reality it has nothing to do with the masses for which China or the US are not a good exemple - the poor in China, the US or Russia are not better off than in switzerland.
French aristocracy did not "betray" the French lol, they merely tried to either flee certain death or try to re-establish their position as the most powerful class of society. Besides, the French revolution had nothing to do with fighting "a-national" families - whatever that means ; only the very highest part of the aristocracy (kings and close relatives) were used to multi-national breeding -, it was mostly a combination of hungry people being angry and not-noble (and sometimes noble), educated people seeing a way to profit off that.
|
Not to mention that at the start of the revolution a lot of the leading figures came out of the aristocracy.
|
On November 04 2015 22:36 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 22:10 WhiteDog wrote:On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution. Because the french were attacked by the entirety of europe ? And their aristocracy betrayed them ? The aristocracy was european already by the way and the rise (and unification) of nations was a way for people to defend theirselves agains those a-national famillies (much like the rise of nationalism in europe is a defence against the mondialisation). Modern arguments are in the same vein btw (they are aristocratic in a sense) : the international power of europe is not enough and we "need" to act collectively to weight in international politics, but in reality it has nothing to do with the masses for which China or the US are not a good exemple - the poor in China, the US or Russia are not better off than in switzerland. The bloodshed during the French revolution was mostly revolutionary factions killing eachother while trying to gain/keep power (civil wars and executions). Wars against other nations did happen, but had a much lesser impact. Unless you count Napoleon's conquests in the revolutionary wars, but then I'm not sure I would agree that poor Napoleon was attacked by all of Europe
You have a particular vision of history : from 1792 to 1802, more than 1m 500 french soldiers and around 400 000 to 500 000 death seem secondary ?
Plus the civil war was first between revolutionary and counter revolutionary - the terror happened afterwards for various reasons.
On November 04 2015 22:41 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 22:10 WhiteDog wrote:On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution. Because the french were attacked by the entirety of europe ? And their aristocracy betrayed them ? The aristocracy was european already by the way and the rise (and unification) of nations was a way for people to defend theirselves agains those a-national famillies (much like the rise of nationalism in europe is a defence against the mondialisation). Modern arguments are in the same vein btw (they are aristocratic in a sense) : the international power of europe is not enough and we "need" to act collectively to weight in international politics, but in reality it has nothing to do with the masses for which China or the US are not a good exemple - the poor in China, the US or Russia are not better off than in switzerland. French aristocracy did not "betray" the French lol, they merely tried to either flee certain death or try to re-establish their position as the most powerful class of society. Besides, the French revolution had nothing to do with fighting "a-national" families - whatever that means ; only the very highest part of the aristocracy (kings and close relatives) were used to multi-national breeding -, it was mostly a combination of hungry people being angry and not-noble (and sometimes noble), educated people seeing a way to profit off that.
Yes the aristocracy and the king betrayed the french, on various occasion (putting the army at every corner in Paris for exemple ?), and even before the bastille. The idea that revolutionary are a bunch of "angry" people is a counter revolutionary argument.
|
On November 04 2015 23:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2015 22:41 OtherWorld wrote:On November 04 2015 22:10 WhiteDog wrote:On November 04 2015 04:33 LegalLord wrote:
Well they did have something along those lines but ended up choosing constitutional monarchy instead. Went much more smoothly than, say, the years following the French Revolution. Because the french were attacked by the entirety of europe ? And their aristocracy betrayed them ? The aristocracy was european already by the way and the rise (and unification) of nations was a way for people to defend theirselves agains those a-national famillies (much like the rise of nationalism in europe is a defence against the mondialisation). Modern arguments are in the same vein btw (they are aristocratic in a sense) : the international power of europe is not enough and we "need" to act collectively to weight in international politics, but in reality it has nothing to do with the masses for which China or the US are not a good exemple - the poor in China, the US or Russia are not better off than in switzerland. French aristocracy did not "betray" the French lol, they merely tried to either flee certain death or try to re-establish their position as the most powerful class of society. Besides, the French revolution had nothing to do with fighting "a-national" families - whatever that means ; only the very highest part of the aristocracy (kings and close relatives) were used to multi-national breeding -, it was mostly a combination of hungry people being angry and not-noble (and sometimes noble), educated people seeing a way to profit off that. Yes the aristocracy and the king betrayed the french, on various occasion, and even before the bastille. The idea that revolutionary are a bunch of "angry" people is a counter revolutionary argument.
I think we might not give the same meaning to the word "betray". Could you give examples of what you mean? To me, the aristocracy defended their position in the society. [edit : saw your edit. Yeah, and what? Putting the army in alert state when there's a risk for the governement's stability is betrayal? Jesus, that's a strange conception of betrayal. Honestly, the very conception that you can betray "The French", that you can betray a whole people as if everyone in this people was the same, is absurd]
And no, the idea that revolutionaries are a bunch of angry people is cold hard truth. Can you point me to one example of revolution - or attempt at revolution - in history in which the revolutionaries were not angry? Anger is the starting point of a societal revolution. You need anger to go down in the streets. You need anger to kill someone because he doesn't have the same opinion as you. You need anger to make blood shed in the name of an ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
