|
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 February 18 2016 20:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 19:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 18 2016 08:23 WhiteDog wrote:On February 18 2016 06:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What? Wow. Thanks, I didn't realise I said X but actually meant Y. You read my mind. What number am I thinking of right now? (Sarcasm) Ok but... stable foreign exchange rate (so that money stays nothing but a veil, and does not impact on exchange) and free capital movement (absence of capital controls) = free market in its purest form ; and an independent monetary policy = political sovereignty / democracy. I wasn't really trying to be insulting to you (sorry if I did) but one can indeed believe free market (in its entirety) is not compatible with democracy (which needs popular sovereignty). Ok so you are just naturally contrary and don't mind appearing crazy to do so. You quoted someone only to talk about something else. You can talk all about the economic trillema all you want, when I am refering to a political trilemma put forth by Dani Rodrik, who is an economist at Harvard. I mean seriously. What is going through your mind? I genuinely want to know what is going through the mind of someone who quotes and disagree with an argument by deciding that the statement in question is something else! And not to do this once, but after being told by the quoted that he is refering to a different concept, goes and explains the irrelevant concept in words instead of a pictogram. There's something very closeminded about someone who can only talk in terms of concepts he is already familiar with. Upon his brain being exposed to a new concept (in this case a political trilemma) he goes and decides that the concept is actually a concept he is familiar with (the economic trilemma). Upon his attention being directed that he refering to a different concept, he decides that the concepts are the one and the same. Can you explain me why your post is so stupid and why is it that you jump up like a virgin at something I said casually ? How about you pee and then come back, fresh and happy. Even took the time to apology, and you continue with your boring behavior. Don't cry so much, i'm closeminded because I refer to a concept I believe is relevant to what you said, and you're closeminded (and outright unpleasant) because you can't discuss without jumping around and showing the purity of your soul. By the way the concept is only irrelevant because you fetishise it and refuse to discuss it beyond its original definition. But whatever, go on with your life, and I'll go on with mine, I understood not to talk to the dangerous kitty. User was warned for this post
lol, at least now we know what goes through your mind.
The article doesn't really give the whole truth. The timing is just a coincidence. The truth is that the British PM doesn't want to leave the EU, but is forced to go through the act by his own backbenchers who form a majority in parliament. It doesn't help that the "stay" crowd are mostly sponsored by big corporations and bankers who can only give dire economic warnings, and the "leave" crowd form emotive arguments. I would vote to stay in the EU, but when I see who sponsors what, I really wonder which is more beneficial to UK. Also, stuck up lobsters? really?
|
On February 19 2016 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 02:55 xM(Z wrote:on the same topic http://www.albawaba.com/news/merkel-summit-decide-whether-scrap-eu-turkey-deal-favor-border-closures-807170Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday that this week's EU summit will decide whether the bloc's deal with Turkey to stem the refugee influx should be pursued or abandoned in favour of a barrier along Greece's borders with Bulgaria and Macedonia.
Merkel told the German parliament that the two-day summit starting Thursday would determine whether the current measures to fight the root causes of migration and to jointly secure the EU's external borders would be enough to bring the refugee crisis under control.
The alternative would be to "abandon [this path] and close the Greek-Macedonian-Bulgarian border instead - with all the consequences that would entail for Greece and the European Union as a whole."
The chancellor was referring to a suggestion from four Central European countries - Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia - that say Europe needs an alternative plan if the current measures fail.
Their so-called "Plan B," which Austrian Chancellor Walter Faymann also advocates, calls for a barrier along Greece's borders with Bulgaria and Macedonia, which EU officials have warned would effectively exclude Greece from the visa-free Schengen zone. WTF You have 2 holes. Turkey and Greece. Why the f**** do you not fix both. What use is there to abandon the Turkey measures and secure the Greek border. Everyone is still coming in through Turkey.... Useless garbage
Presumably they'd try to close the Bulgarian border with Turkey too, as well as potential sea routes between Turkey and Bulgaria or Romania.
Of course, that means Greece is officialized as a second rate EU member (rather than just treated as one). We'll be saying that the EU deals with the immigration problems everywhere except in Greece, because, well, fucks the Greeks.
I don't know in what world this is an acceptable solution.
It also doesn't deal with the other floodgates, known as Italy, allowing hordes of Africans in via Libya.
|
The funniest part is that Macedonia is not even an EU member and countries prefer to cooperate with it rather than with Greece. Maybe it's time to start calling it Republic of Macedonia officially instead of FYROM
|
it's no that dude. there's nothing about preference here but everything about the fact that the greek coastline is unclosable so they did "the next best thing" they could come up with.
they also have some NATO boats patrolling the Mediterranean and the Aegean seas trying to catch the refugee traffickers.
|
Bulgaria's parliament voted on Thursday to let its army assist police in guarding the Balkan country's borders to avoid a refugee influx that has overwhelmed some of its neighbors.
Over 30,000 migrants entered Bulgaria, which is outside the European Union's passport-free Schengen travel, last year, nearly three times more than in 2014. But very few stay in the European Union's poorest state, preferring to journey onwards to wealthier western EU countries like Germany and Sweden.
But Sofia's move coincided with tightening border controls along the main migration corridor from Greece northward through Macedonia and Serbia, raising concern increasing numbers of migrants may try alternate routes through Bulgaria.
A bill on amendments and supplements to Bulgaria's Defense and Armed Forces Act was passed unanimously at first reading, with lawmakers authorizing troops to help handle any migrant wave in “extraordinary and crisis circumstances.” Final approval at second reading is anticipated next week.
“We have full readiness for the army taking part in border protection; migration pressure increases as the weather gets warmer,” Defense Minister Nikolay Nenchev said.
Source
|
On February 19 2016 03:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 20:17 WhiteDog wrote:On February 18 2016 19:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 18 2016 08:23 WhiteDog wrote:On February 18 2016 06:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What? Wow. Thanks, I didn't realise I said X but actually meant Y. You read my mind. What number am I thinking of right now? (Sarcasm) Ok but... stable foreign exchange rate (so that money stays nothing but a veil, and does not impact on exchange) and free capital movement (absence of capital controls) = free market in its purest form ; and an independent monetary policy = political sovereignty / democracy. I wasn't really trying to be insulting to you (sorry if I did) but one can indeed believe free market (in its entirety) is not compatible with democracy (which needs popular sovereignty). Ok so you are just naturally contrary and don't mind appearing crazy to do so. You quoted someone only to talk about something else. You can talk all about the economic trillema all you want, when I am refering to a political trilemma put forth by Dani Rodrik, who is an economist at Harvard. I mean seriously. What is going through your mind? I genuinely want to know what is going through the mind of someone who quotes and disagree with an argument by deciding that the statement in question is something else! And not to do this once, but after being told by the quoted that he is refering to a different concept, goes and explains the irrelevant concept in words instead of a pictogram. There's something very closeminded about someone who can only talk in terms of concepts he is already familiar with. Upon his brain being exposed to a new concept (in this case a political trilemma) he goes and decides that the concept is actually a concept he is familiar with (the economic trilemma). Upon his attention being directed that he refering to a different concept, he decides that the concepts are the one and the same. Can you explain me why your post is so stupid and why is it that you jump up like a virgin at something I said casually ? How about you pee and then come back, fresh and happy. Even took the time to apology, and you continue with your boring behavior. Don't cry so much, i'm closeminded because I refer to a concept I believe is relevant to what you said, and you're closeminded (and outright unpleasant) because you can't discuss without jumping around and showing the purity of your soul. By the way the concept is only irrelevant because you fetishise it and refuse to discuss it beyond its original definition. But whatever, go on with your life, and I'll go on with mine, I understood not to talk to the dangerous kitty. User was warned for this post lol, at least now we know what goes through your mind. The article doesn't really give the whole truth. The timing is just a coincidence. The truth is that the British PM doesn't want to leave the EU, but is forced to go through the act by his own backbenchers who form a majority in parliament. It doesn't help that the "stay" crowd are mostly sponsored by big corporations and bankers who can only give dire economic warnings, and the "leave" crowd form emotive arguments. I would vote to stay in the EU, but when I see who sponsors what, I really wonder which is more beneficial to UK. Also, stuck up lobsters? really?
If i go by what i hear around here, not many welsh would vote against the EU. Not even out and about in the pub etc, where usually the dumbest shit gets said (including my side, that's just what alcohol does to people), people would rather stay in the EU.
Same for the scottish, i assume. The biggest group to vote FOR brexit would be daily mail readers. And i don't really trust their judgement, for some reason. If push comes to shove and the UK leaves the EU, i'll take my future wife and move abroad. Because a brexit literally has no winner - but one of the two parties will be hurt more.
Fun thing, this refusal to go by rules that go for everyone, considering that the UK does pretty much the same thing to scots and welsh. I think most welsh here rather would split off of the UK than leaving the EU. Actually, most welsh would just split off of the UK no matter what, but that's a different story.
|
It would be kinda Ironic if the UK breaks up because it breaks from the EU.
|
Not ironic, but inevitable. The ironic thing about it is that in England, the spirit of empire still exists.
|
On February 19 2016 06:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Bulgaria's parliament voted on Thursday to let its army assist police in guarding the Balkan country's borders to avoid a refugee influx that has overwhelmed some of its neighbors.
Over 30,000 migrants entered Bulgaria, which is outside the European Union's passport-free Schengen travel, last year, nearly three times more than in 2014. But very few stay in the European Union's poorest state, preferring to journey onwards to wealthier western EU countries like Germany and Sweden.
But Sofia's move coincided with tightening border controls along the main migration corridor from Greece northward through Macedonia and Serbia, raising concern increasing numbers of migrants may try alternate routes through Bulgaria.
A bill on amendments and supplements to Bulgaria's Defense and Armed Forces Act was passed unanimously at first reading, with lawmakers authorizing troops to help handle any migrant wave in “extraordinary and crisis circumstances.” Final approval at second reading is anticipated next week.
“We have full readiness for the army taking part in border protection; migration pressure increases as the weather gets warmer,” Defense Minister Nikolay Nenchev said. Source
In fact Bulgaria is protecting EU borders much better than anyone else, but we still can`t get into Schengen Zone for some reason.
|
On February 19 2016 22:44 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 06:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Bulgaria's parliament voted on Thursday to let its army assist police in guarding the Balkan country's borders to avoid a refugee influx that has overwhelmed some of its neighbors.
Over 30,000 migrants entered Bulgaria, which is outside the European Union's passport-free Schengen travel, last year, nearly three times more than in 2014. But very few stay in the European Union's poorest state, preferring to journey onwards to wealthier western EU countries like Germany and Sweden.
But Sofia's move coincided with tightening border controls along the main migration corridor from Greece northward through Macedonia and Serbia, raising concern increasing numbers of migrants may try alternate routes through Bulgaria.
A bill on amendments and supplements to Bulgaria's Defense and Armed Forces Act was passed unanimously at first reading, with lawmakers authorizing troops to help handle any migrant wave in “extraordinary and crisis circumstances.” Final approval at second reading is anticipated next week.
“We have full readiness for the army taking part in border protection; migration pressure increases as the weather gets warmer,” Defense Minister Nikolay Nenchev said. Source In fact Bulgaria is protecting EU borders much better than anyone else, but we still can`t get into Schengen Zone for some reason.
Protecting your borders is only a small part of Schengen. Probably the least important one. The reasons Bulgaria isn't let into Schengen are due to the rather horrific socio-political situation there, and have nothing to do with security.
|
What situation? I thought they just have to wait a bit just like everyone else had to after their accession.
|
On February 19 2016 23:09 Sent. wrote:
What situation? I thought they just have to wait a bit just like everyone else had to after their accession.
waiting for 10 years already
|
On February 19 2016 23:09 Sent. wrote:
What situation? I thought they just have to wait a bit just like everyone else had to after their accession.
No. Their admission is on hold (as is Romania's). Two countries that are run by dubious governments and have rampant problems with widespread corruption, which was cited as the reason for this decision.
Security of the eastern border might be a way for them to force their entry, but I doubt it'll work like that.
|
I see, that's unfortunate.
|
On February 19 2016 22:29 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Not ironic, but inevitable. The ironic thing about it is that in England, the spirit of empire still exists.
Of course.
The funny thing is, only there.
All the rest of the "empire" wants to leave the UK sooner rather than later. Or keep the "UK", and get rid of england. Pretty much exactly the same situation as the UK (actually, england) vs the EU.
Understandably so, i want to add.
|
Hopefully European leaders have wisdom. You can't have a union where there's elite members with special privileges and second class members. We have to cut off the rotten part that is the UK. If we keep them, they will pull this stunt again in 5 or 10 years, until the EU is destroyed completely. It's not that there aren't other threats to EU cohesion already.
|
On February 18 2016 08:51 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2016 08:45 Nyxisto wrote:On February 18 2016 08:41 WhiteDog wrote:On February 18 2016 08:37 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it makes sense to define democracy along those lines,at least if you want to keep the positive connotation of the word, it's more like tribalism Well it's democracy in the traditional sense. For europeans like you, democracy doesn't need popular sovereignty, but can work with a few people - technocrats - defining the economic policy. Tho I'm not sure it's the mainstream definition of democracy. The mainstream definition and one that is most genuine is probably somehwere in the middle. Pure popular will defined along national lines can be more tyrannical than most other things. Nationalism didn't do a lot of good things to socialism either. The market and international economy have it's place in democracy and they've been a great liberator in many regards. I'm also no proponent of laissez-faire stuff but I don't think there is a contradiction between internationalism and democracy or if there is one we ought to accept it rather than defining democracy along national lines. Democracy is what it is, power to the people, and that is not possible without popular sovereignty. That's it, you can argue against full democracy - which is what you are doing right now - but you can't say that real democracy is not full democracy but "probably somewhere in the middle". In reality, and historically, the opposite was true : we amended the free market to permit full democracy, like with Bretton Woods, that reduced capital mobility in order to permit stable foreign exchange rate and sovereign over the monetary policy. In the euro zone, there are stable foreign exchange rate, capital mobility and no sovereignty over the monetary policy : it is not really a democracy in the pure sense but somewhere in between a democracy and a technocracy, because the people have no sovereignty over economic policy.
Actually, democracy has little to do with "power to the people", unless you interpret it in the classical Athenian sense of the word (Athenian democracy had plenty of problems of its own and usually devolved into a tyranny of the majority). Democracy as we know it (representative democracy) is society-wide interest mediation between various groups of people. As a consequence, the party that manages to defend its interest the best usually will be able to push through legislation to their advantage.
|
On February 20 2016 00:26 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2016 22:29 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Not ironic, but inevitable. The ironic thing about it is that in England, the spirit of empire still exists. Of course. The funny thing is, only there. All the rest of the "empire" wants to leave the UK sooner rather than later. Or keep the "UK", and get rid of england. Pretty much exactly the same situation as the UK (actually, england) vs the EU. Understandably so, i want to add.
It's always funny when foreigners comment on matters they know nothing about.
|
On February 20 2016 04:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2016 00:26 m4ini wrote:On February 19 2016 22:29 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Not ironic, but inevitable. The ironic thing about it is that in England, the spirit of empire still exists. Of course. The funny thing is, only there. All the rest of the "empire" wants to leave the UK sooner rather than later. Or keep the "UK", and get rid of england. Pretty much exactly the same situation as the UK (actually, england) vs the EU. Understandably so, i want to add. It's always funny when foreigners comment on matters they know nothing about.
I am not a muslim.
|
On February 20 2016 05:29 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2016 04:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 20 2016 00:26 m4ini wrote:On February 19 2016 22:29 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Not ironic, but inevitable. The ironic thing about it is that in England, the spirit of empire still exists. Of course. The funny thing is, only there. All the rest of the "empire" wants to leave the UK sooner rather than later. Or keep the "UK", and get rid of england. Pretty much exactly the same situation as the UK (actually, england) vs the EU. Understandably so, i want to add. It's always funny when foreigners comment on matters they know nothing about. I am not a muslim.
The mind boggles why you think your religion is relevant to this post...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
