|
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 September 30 2016 23:13 zatic wrote:
After controlling for double counting and people who left Germany again, the official number for asylumn seekers in Germany for 2015 is 890.000. Authorities registered 820.000 completed asylumn requests. 50.000 requested asylum, but didn't go through with the full process. Majority of those is expected to have moved on to another country. The remaining 20.000 are unaccompanied minors who have yet to be processed.
Even the Hungarian leader admits that due to Schengen migrants who register in Hungary just hop on a train to Germany as soon as they are registered.These people are not staying in Hungary (Or Greece,Italy if they are able to).
Hungary had per capita more applicants than Sweden.Sure maybe a few went on to Sweden, France etc but the majority just went straight to Germany.
|
German Chancellor Angela Merkel cannot afford to bail out Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) given the hard line Berlin has taken against state aid in other European nations and the risk of a political backlash at home, German media wrote on Saturday.
The government denied a newspaper report on Wednesday that it was working on a rescue plan for Germany's biggest bank, as its shares went into a tailspin fuelled by a demand for up to $14 billion (10.79 billion pound) from U.S. authorities for misselling mortgage-backed securities before the financial crisis.
Germany, which has insisted Italy and others accept tough conditions in tackling their problem lenders, can ill afford to be seen to go soft on its flagship bank, the Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote.
"Of course Chancellor Merkel doesn't want to give Deutsche Bank any state aid," it wrote in a front-page editorial. "She cannot afford it from the point of view of foreign policy because Berlin is taking a hard line in the Italian bank rescue."
The Munich-based Sueddeutsche Zeitung wrote that Merkel would be breaking a promise to taxpayers if she were to bail the bank out, which could spell disaster for her re-election bid next year as the anti-immigration AfD party gains ground.
The AfD is already benefiting from a backlash against Merkel's open-door refugee policy, making huge gains in two regional elections last month and hitting an all-time high of 16 percent support in an opinion poll last week.
"A state aid package would drive voters into the arms of the AfD," the Sueddeutsche wrote in an editorial.
"Domestic political considerations make it unlikely that Berlin would play this joker. Even more unlikely is that the European Commission would agree. The political risk would be simply too high."
Shares in Deutsche Bank recovered somewhat on Friday from a record low early in the day after a report that it was close to a cut-price settlement of $5.4 billion instead of $14 billion.
The bank, the U.S. Department of Justice and the German finance ministry all declined to comment on the report.
The crisis also prompted Deutsche Bank's normally reticent Chief Executive John Cryan to publish a letter seeking to reassure staff the bank was stable and hitting out at "forces" that wanted to weaken trust in the bank.
The Stuttgarter Zeitung wrote on Saturday: "Deutsche Bank has to win back ground here because as exaggerated as the reports of an existential danger to the bank may have been, just as obvious are its continuing difficulties."
"Trust is a bank's most important currency."
uk.reuters.com
|
As if there was a choice... The DB is a systemic bank.
|
On October 02 2016 02:28 TheDwf wrote:
As if there was a choice... The DB is a systemic bank.
Still, there is a choice ; you can give it a loan with stupidly low interest, you can buy it at a very cheap price before the crash and take control of the firm. The european or the british solution.
|
Can't set a precedent. Can't compromise the Europe project. Can't address obvious systemic issues that are causing things within the union to go badly. Classic.
|
The fine is neither here nor there.
The problem is the $50 trillion in derivatives they hold.
I agree with LegalLord though about setting a precedent.
It's going to be interesting.
|
That's gross exposure. Net exposure is a lot smaller than that (less thsn 1%). The fine is inportsnt because it reduces equity by that amount. Equity which DB is already sorely lacking. I doubt they're in danger of bankruptcy though. Only a bank run could do that at the moment but the ecb is a backstop against that.
|
Hungarian referendum about eu refugee quotas:
The question: “Are you in favour of the EU being allowed to make the settlement of non-Hungarians obligatory in Hungary even if the parliament does not agree?”
TURNOUT: 46.33% (50%+ needed for the referendum to be valid)
YES VOTE: 1.7%
NO VOTE: 98.3%
INVALID VOTES: 6.32%
Processed: 99.71%
source: www.origo.hu
edit1: appr. 8million people eligible to vote, source: my memory
|
I really wish we'd just stop holding random referendums
|
|
|
It was a pure propaganda thing for the Fidesz party to deflect form internal corruption, as is tradition for Orban. This thing wouldn't have actually affected any law even if it hadn't been invalid. A quota system is off the table anyway at this point.
|
Referendums where not voting is better than voting no (or in this case yes) are the farts of democracy
|
It was a pure propaganda thing for the Fidesz party to deflect form internal corruption, as is tradition for Orban.
You are right.
This thing wouldn't have actually affected any law even if it hadn't been invalid. A quota system is off the table anyway at this point.
I think it was mainly due to this referendum and the heavy resistance of the V4 that it was taken off the table. So I think it wasn't that unnecessary. Though you are right about that it wouldn't have made a difference had it been not invalid.
|
I as well question the validity of holding a referendum that really won't affect any actual laws. Either make them matter, or don't hold them.
|
46% turnout is surprising, I wouldn't waste my time like this
|
On October 03 2016 04:46 D_lux wrote:Hungarian referendum about eu refugee quotas: The question: “Are you in favour of the EU being allowed to make the settlement of non-Hungarians obligatory in Hungary even if the parliament does not agree?” TURNOUT: 46.33% (50%+ needed for the referendum to be valid) YES VOTE: 1.7% NO VOTE: 98.3% INVALID VOTES: 6.32% Processed: 99.71% source: www.origo.huedit1: appr. 8million people eligible to vote, source: my memory
Invalid referendum? Well, in case people needed to be reminded that authoritarian would-be Putins like Orban are amateurs, that does the job.
|
On October 03 2016 04:46 D_lux wrote:Hungarian referendum about eu refugee quotas: The question: “Are you in favour of the EU being allowed to make the settlement of non-Hungarians obligatory in Hungary even if the parliament does not agree?” TURNOUT: 46.33% (50%+ needed for the referendum to be valid) YES VOTE: 1.7% NO VOTE: 98.3% INVALID VOTES: 6.32% Processed: 99.71% source: www.origo.huedit1: appr. 8million people eligible to vote, source: my memory
That is also a very loaded question that will obviously get a massive No vote. "Should the EU be able to ignore our government" lol what a question.
Why was the question not "should we take in refugees"?
|
On October 03 2016 05:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 04:46 D_lux wrote:Hungarian referendum about eu refugee quotas: The question: “Are you in favour of the EU being allowed to make the settlement of non-Hungarians obligatory in Hungary even if the parliament does not agree?” TURNOUT: 46.33% (50%+ needed for the referendum to be valid) YES VOTE: 1.7% NO VOTE: 98.3% INVALID VOTES: 6.32% Processed: 99.71% source: www.origo.huedit1: appr. 8million people eligible to vote, source: my memory That is also a very loaded question that will obviously get a massive No vote. "Should the EU be able to ignore our government" lol what a question. Why was the question not "should we take in refugees"?
Weirdly enough, the EU is based on the very principle that it is able to ignore governments.
|
On October 03 2016 05:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 04:46 D_lux wrote:Hungarian referendum about eu refugee quotas: The question: “Are you in favour of the EU being allowed to make the settlement of non-Hungarians obligatory in Hungary even if the parliament does not agree?” TURNOUT: 46.33% (50%+ needed for the referendum to be valid) YES VOTE: 1.7% NO VOTE: 98.3% INVALID VOTES: 6.32% Processed: 99.71% source: www.origo.huedit1: appr. 8million people eligible to vote, source: my memory Invalid referendum? Well, in case people needed to be reminded that authoritarian would-be Putins like Orban are amateurs, that does the job.
how?
|
On October 03 2016 06:15 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 05:37 OtherWorld wrote:On October 03 2016 04:46 D_lux wrote:Hungarian referendum about eu refugee quotas: The question: “Are you in favour of the EU being allowed to make the settlement of non-Hungarians obligatory in Hungary even if the parliament does not agree?” TURNOUT: 46.33% (50%+ needed for the referendum to be valid) YES VOTE: 1.7% NO VOTE: 98.3% INVALID VOTES: 6.32% Processed: 99.71% source: www.origo.huedit1: appr. 8million people eligible to vote, source: my memory Invalid referendum? Well, in case people needed to be reminded that authoritarian would-be Putins like Orban are amateurs, that does the job. how?
Cmon. You hold a populist referendum that's guaranteed to result in a big vote in favor of your side. With a 98+% on your side, you potentially get a huge communication boost. Except that if it's invalid, your opponents can claim that, well, it's invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
