EPTYou allow them to enter. Debate them. Wipe the floor with them. Then you inform NATO you either will be leaving, or Turkey will (which you only do after Edrogan dealt with his loss on the referendum).
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 705
| 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. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
You allow them to enter. Debate them. Wipe the floor with them. Then you inform NATO you either will be leaving, or Turkey will (which you only do after Edrogan dealt with his loss on the referendum). | ||
|
Aceace
Turkey1305 Posts
At april 15 we are going to vote if we are going to give even more power to Erdoğan or not. As you know we already live in a near totaliter regime but he wants some guarantee about his position. AKP holds majority in parliament but they needed 2/3 of parliament votes and they failed. So he is going to use referendum. But (fortunately) public opinion is "No" atm. I wont go into details but if he gets a "Yes" from referandum we are simply screwed. So... He needs votes from the Turks living in European nations. In Germany, Netherlands and Belgium millions of Turks lives and they generally votes for Erdoğan. It may sound absurd. I don't believe any of Turks votes for Geert Wilders but at last election %69.66 voted for Erdoğan in Netherlands. Basicly they prefer a "Strong (!) Turkey" over a democratic Turkey. Anyways... Even some of the AKP supporters are not sure about their vote. Just like all totaliter leaders Erdoğan needs an "enemy" to unite his supporters. He need an escalation against a foreign country. He first tried with Germany but then he changed his focus to Netherlands. That was brilliant. As you know, you are going to election at wednesday and a big Turkish campaign would only help Wilders. Netherlands took the bait... I can only hope your government realize that. This situation isn't good at all. (At least for us) Oh one more thing. On March 12 2017 02:03 LegalLord wrote: Someone needs to take back Constantinople so we can just forget about Turkey forever. Its "İstanbul" not Constantinople. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
On March 12 2017 11:04 Philoctetes wrote: No. You don't do it because of threats of sanctions. You do it to win, because you are right and they are wrong. You allow them to enter. Debate them. Wipe the floor with them. Then you inform NATO you either will be leaving, or Turkey will. Rutte was trying to reach a compromise with the Turkish government. Then Turkey threatened sanctions and only after that did our government not let the Turkish minister in. So yes if we'd let him in (or let the other minister speak) we'd be caving in to their demands. I don't disagree that we should've engaged with them in a debate earlier but that dynamic changed when Turkey started issuing threats. That's where the line was (and should be) drawn. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
If someone makes a threat, you act like you didn't hear it and you keep your exact position. Changing your position in response to a thread is exactly the same thing as caving in. Especially if you know the other side is smarter than you are (I hope Rutte realizes Edrogan is smarter than he is). Rutte doesn't dare to debate on Turkey, because Wilders. The whole idea that you could make a deal with Turkey and compromise, that is pure nativity. Doesn't Rutte realize that Edrogan will try every dirty trick to win the referendum? Is he really that dense? So they thought Turkey was a honest partner, until the thread of sanctions. And then Rutte gambled and lost? And that's defensible how? If you are right, Rutte is even worse than I think he is. | ||
|
Yurie
11813 Posts
I think he is using the classical Roman/Byzantine name for the city as part of the call for taking it back. Used in that context it is logical since part of taking it back from the Turkish population could be changing its name back to what it was called in the time period you need to go to take it back from somebody (nearing a millennia). He could have gotten cuter and used Lygos for an even older name, though the ones taking it back would not be the same ones then. Using Byzantium would argue for Italy taking it back, so I assume the name used argued for a specific Orthodox Christian take over (or something akin to that). Since he often argues pro Russian stances I guess he wants Russia to take it since it is Eastern Orthodox. Image of Eastern Orthodoxy spread by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Orthodoxy_by_country.png (Generally speaking I would recommend ignoring posts by LegalLord but this was a fun digression.) | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On March 12 2017 11:26 Yurie wrote: I think he is using the classical Roman/Byzantine name for the city as part of the call for taking it back. Used in that context it is logical since part of taking it back from the Turkish population could be changing its name back to what it was called in the time period you need to go to take it back from somebody (nearing a millennia). He could have gotten cuter and used Lygos for an even older name, though the ones taking it back would not be the same ones then. Using Byzantium would argue for Italy taking it back, so I assume the name used argued for a specific Orthodox Christian take over (or something akin to that). Since he often argues pro Russian stances I guess he wants Russia to take it and since it is Eastern Orthodox. Image of Eastern Orthodoxy spread by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern_Orthodoxy_by_country.png (Generally speaking I would recommend ignoring posts by LegalLord but this was a fun digression.) You do realize Constantinople was taken in 1453, not 1000AD. It's been 5 and a half centuries, not nearing a millenia. Just saying :p | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
I'm inclined to agree with Philoctetes that we should have let them speak. Words can't harm us if we stick to our values regardless of the words spoken. The threats should have been dealt with in the appropriate framework, and I don't think that framework includes banning people from speaking. Looking at it from a distance, the threat of sanctions really did seem like a bait, and we took it. The threat of sanctions may have warranted the ban/refusal to let them land the plane on a superficial level of judgement, but the way all of this played out makes me think that Erdogan had a follow-up plan. Erdogan wanted a foreign enemy/scapegoat, and now he's got one. It will likely only serve to strengthen his position at home. Meanwhile, we didn't gain anything from the ban or the debacle with the other minister. The majority of our Dutch-Turkish population will still be voting for Erdogan (60-70% if those numbers hold up - that's disheartening, by the way), maybe even moreso than if we'd have let the ministers speak on his behalf. They can still reach them quite easily over the internet and TV, after all, and tell them "their side" of the story. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17975 Posts
On March 12 2017 12:56 a_flayer wrote: LegalLord is just trolling again. I'm surprised he didn't say the Constantinople. Maybe tone it down, mate. I'm inclined to agree with Philoctetes that we should have let them speak. Words can't harm us if we stick to our values regardless of the words spoken. The threats should have been dealt with in the appropriate framework, and I don't think that framework includes banning people from speaking. Looking at it from a distance, the threat of sanctions really did seem like a bait, and we took it. The threat of sanctions may have warranted the ban/refusal to let them land the plane on a superficial level of judgement, but the way all of this played out makes me think that Erdogan had a follow-up plan. There was no debate. It was going to be a campaign rally. I don't see how it is the Netherlands' job to organize a rally for the opposing side. It's ridiculous to bypass the government and try to campaign in a foreign nation without setting up the ground rules first. And Erdogan got shut down for that, probably souring Dutch-Turkish relations for years to come over this stupid shit. Erdogan wanted a foreign enemy/scapegoat, and now he's got one. It will likely only serve to strengthen his position at home. Meanwhile, we didn't gain anything from the ban or the debacle with the other minister. The majority of our Dutch-Turkish population will still be voting for Erdogan (60-70% if those numbers hold up - that's disheartening, by the way), maybe even moreso than if we'd have let the ministers speak on his behalf. They can still reach them quite easily over the internet and TV, after all, and tell them "their side" of the story. Absolutely. But don't forget that Rutte couldn't possibly back down without losing lots of his voters to Wilders. Erdogan picking a fight right now was brilliant. He got his foreign scapegoat. Anyway, I'm kinda glad the Dutch stood up and refused to be pushed around by Turkey. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 12 2017 11:05 Aceace wrote: I guess i should write about Turkey's (well to be correct Erdoğan's) position. At april 15 we are going to vote if we are going to give even more power to Erdoğan or not. As you know we already live in a near totaliter regime but he wants some guarantee about his position. AKP holds majority in parliament but they needed 2/3 of parliament votes and they failed. So he is going to use referendum. But (fortunately) public opinion is "No" atm. I wont go into details but if he gets a "Yes" from referandum we are simply screwed. So... He needs votes from the Turks living in European nations. In Germany, Netherlands and Belgium millions of Turks lives and they generally votes for Erdoğan. It may sound absurd. I don't believe any of Turks votes for Geert Wilders but at last election %69.66 voted for Erdoğan in Netherlands. Basicly they prefer a "Strong (!) Turkey" over a democratic Turkey. Anyways... Even some of the AKP supporters are not sure about their vote. Just like all totaliter leaders Erdoğan needs an "enemy" to unite his supporters. He need an escalation against a foreign country. He first tried with Germany but then he changed his focus to Netherlands. That was brilliant. As you know, you are going to election at wednesday and a big Turkish campaign would only help Wilders. Netherlands took the bait... I can only hope your government realize that. This situation isn't good at all. (At least for us) Oh one more thing. Its "İstanbul" not Constantinople. Don't mind this Legalsomething guy, he just tries to work people up using the least amount of words possible  So you think that "No" is the current status? Is this the likely outcome? Is there a danger that Erdogan will manipulate the results beyond just campaining in unsual places? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21650 Posts
On March 12 2017 11:14 Philoctetes wrote: So responding to a threat is not caving in? If someone makes a threat, you act like you didn't hear it and you keep your exact position. Changing your position in response to a thread is exactly the same thing as caving in. Especially if you know the other side is smarter than you are (I hope Rutte realizes Edrogan is smarter than he is). Rutte doesn't dare to debate on Turkey, because Wilders. The whole idea that you could make a deal with Turkey and compromise, that is pure nativity. Doesn't Rutte realize that Edrogan will try every dirty trick to win the referendum? Is he really that dense? So they thought Turkey was a honest partner, until the thread of sanctions. And then Rutte gambled and lost? And that's defensible how? If you are right, Rutte is even worse than I think he is. How did Rutte lose? I don't get your reasoning. If he allows the second minister to enter after denying the first the news will be filled with 'Rutte is weak", "Turkey walked all over the Dutch government" ect ect. Wilders goes on a tirade and rakes in the easy votes from people who (rightfully) think we should stand up to bullies. Now? He stands up to big bad Erdogan, Wilders can't score extra points by being different from the establishment and our relationship with Turkey is worse but of no concern since it was going south quickly anyway because there is no way that the Netherlands will ever acknowledge Erdogan as the great Sultan ruler of Turkey (or whatever title his dictatorship wants). This government was seen as weak by a lot of people, a lot more then just Wilders followers, because they try to be diplomatic and to accommodate people without escalating. Last night showed that there still is some backbone to it. 100% a win for Rutte. As for Erdogan winning? He was always going to 'win'. Thats the power of a dictator controlling all the media. Whatever story comes out always has him winning. So long as we remind the Turks who lives here and in other countries like Germany how it went down, I don't see how Erdogan wins over any doubters he has here. The initial rally was cancelled over safety reasons because of the large amount of expected visitors. During negotiations to reschedule Turkey threatens us, we break off the negotiations and tell him he is not welcome. Turkey sends a second minister, can't let her in as we denied the first and the threats on still on the table, second minister refuses to leave, arrested and deported. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7884 Posts
On March 12 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote: Your concerns about the FN are not without merit, given the history of the party and other factors that might indicate that they really do have a lot of the same aspects as the old party. But they do clearly touch upon something important, given how much their support has risen over the past decade. And they are likely helped along by the fact that the terms "racism" and "fascism" have indeed been used too loosely in the past, diminishing the effectiveness of how they are used right now. And while the elections of 2017 do suggest that populist parties will get worse results than in 2016, there is no indication of a long-term receding of the populist trend; more like an oscillation. Perhaps if other parties were to be more cognizant of the issues that lead people towards populists (sovereignty, uncontrolled immigration among them) those parties would be less popular right now. Maybe a few insane people in high office is the kick in the ass that the EU needs to understand that the current system is headed only towards a fracturing of the union. I can agree with most of that. I think that at least in France, the left wing has in the 80's recycled their class warfare program for identities politics. They did so because they accessed power in1982 on a very left wing platform that they didn't manage to apply. So they ended up doing a huge swing towards the centre (le tournant de la rigueur), abandonned the working class and concentrated on fighting racism and made the FN into the big ennemy. Let's be clear, racism was and is a gigantic and systemic problem in France, that needs to be adressed and ruins our society. But with a complete lack of real effort towards the working class, that strategy has been supremely counter productive. Suddenly voting for fascist scums has become a way to protest (just like the contemporary hysteria towards islam feeds fundamentalism), suddenly the popular classes and the immigrants were not united in a joint effort towards the bourgeoisie, and suddenly the FN could claim that they were defending the workers by saying that it was all the immigrants fault. The EU needs a shitloads of reforms and it's not quite clear how and when it can be done. It needs a much bigger transfer of sovereignty and a more federal like approach. It's a hugely important project for the future of Europe and the peace in our part of the world, and the only coherent way to resist Russia and protect Eastern Europe from its expansionist views, and not to be completely dominated by the US. We have the choice of being a superpower or abunch of weak and very weak countries surrounded by an extremely dominant neighbout on the west and an extremely aggressive one on the East. But let's be clear, the FN is against the EU not for pragmatic reasons (they are no pragmatic reasons to be against the EU at that point and nobody else on the political spectrum is - even the far left is for) but because of their ultranationalist ideology. The idea that we put our differences aside and work together represent everything they hate and fear. And they convince people that the EU is awful with the same xenophobic, simplistic arguments with which they bash immigrants, by exploiting fear, resentment, hatred of the elite and lying about what are the real challenges. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
Aceace
Turkey1305 Posts
On March 12 2017 17:22 opisska wrote: Don't mind this Legalsomething guy, he just tries to work people up using the least amount of words possible So you think that "No" is the current status? Is this the likely outcome? Is there a danger that Erdogan will manipulate the results beyond just campaining in unsual places? "No" is the current status. But i'm not sure about likely outcome. Only 1 month left but Erdoğan trying really really hard... I don't believe he can manipulate the votes. Eventho we are living a near totalitarian regime there is a tradition in Turkish elections. Even in the smallest villages, peoples goes to poll centers and wait till they witness the results. In last election even my father waited for hours to witness results. (He is 68 years old btw) Foreign campaign not only affects Turkish/Dutch voters. It also affects here. Turkish media is covered by Erdoğan - Netherlands escalation. Every AKP minister saying basicly"Netherlands government is a nazist-faschist, Erdoğan and AKP government is true democratic government. To fight against them we have to unite." | ||
|
Yurie
11813 Posts
On March 12 2017 22:31 Wegandi wrote: While I wasn't alive at the time, it wasn't too long ago that the 'left' was about localism = empowerment. Since the mid 70s it seems like everything has inched towards one world Government. Now, if you're for local control and power you're an evil racist xenophobe lol. Don't get me wrong, there are those people out there, but just because you're for national sovereignty and local empowerment doesn't mean you're a racist xenophobe. That's just an epithet to try and shut down any coherent debate. It's the lowest of low brow. Besides, if you think the US is dysfunctional due to having disparate ideologies and culture (to an extent) crammed into one body vying for power to rule over everyone and impose their own personal beliefs (which it is), implementing the same non-sense system on an even more disparate group of people and nations is beyond dumb. All you're going to accomplish is more conflict and strife, not less. There are not many people against the EU as an economic free-trade zone, but politicizing and continentalizing (my own made up word since it's beyond nationalization lmao), the EU will only lead to more ruin imho. I am however, a dumb American who has seen what 50 separate nations (the states) under one Government body (DC) has driven the country into - rife with conflict, hyper-partisanship, etc. If you want some of that by all means keep pushing to make the EU into a federalized nation. There will be growing pains. Hopefully nothing as bad as the civil war the US had to stick together. I would much prefer a world government with the small insurrections that would happen here and there over actual wars between countries. There is always a risk of a world government collapsing but I prefer that direction to the extreme of localised power which is anarchism. The current state of the world with nation states isn't very good (though the best we know of in the entire history of mankind). We have plenty of nuclear powers and high tensions between them. A single nuclear war would likely kill more people than a global dictatorship would over two generations (assuming that massive killing would even be necessary). | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On March 12 2017 19:26 Biff The Understudy wrote: I can agree with most of that. I think that at least in France, the left wing has in the 80's recycled their class warfare program for identities politics. They did so because they accessed power in1982 on a very left wing platform that they didn't manage to apply. So they ended up doing a huge swing towards the centre (le tournant de la rigueur), abandonned the working class and concentrated on fighting racism and made the FN into the big ennemy. Let's be clear, racism was and is a gigantic and systemic problem in France, that needs to be adressed and ruins our society. But with a complete lack of real effort towards the working class, that strategy has been supremely counter productive. Suddenly voting for fascist scums has become a way to protest (just like the contemporary hysteria towards islam feeds fundamentalism), suddenly the popular classes and the immigrants were not united in a joint effort towards the bourgeoisie, and suddenly the FN could claim that they were defending the workers by saying that it was all the immigrants fault. The EU needs a shitloads of reforms and it's not quite clear how and when it can be done. It needs a much bigger transfer of sovereignty and a more federal like approach. It's a hugely important project for the future of Europe and the peace in our part of the world, and the only coherent way to resist Russia and protect Eastern Europe from its expansionist views, and not to be completely dominated by the US. We have the choice of being a superpower or abunch of weak and very weak countries surrounded by an extremely dominant neighbout on the west and an extremely aggressive one on the East. But let's be clear, the FN is against the EU not for pragmatic reasons (they are no pragmatic reasons to be against the EU at that point and nobody else on the political spectrum is - even the far left is for) but because of their ultranationalist ideology. The idea that we put our differences aside and work together represent everything they hate and fear. And they convince people that the EU is awful with the same xenophobic, simplistic arguments with which they bash immigrants, by exploiting fear, resentment, hatred of the elite and lying about what are the real challenges. Of course there are reasons to be against the EU as it is—most importantly its antidemocratic, neoliberal nature. Federalism is minority among the people, any referendum clearly asking the question would most likely result in a “no”; but instead we had this undeclared strategy of forced federalization via the eurozone, and referenda routinely ignored/cancelled when they don't give the desired result. The PS in the 1980s abandoned socialism in favor of the European construction, always claiming that the fabled “social Europe” would eventually come. It never did. In 2015, we saw with Greece how antisocial and antidemocratic the European institutions had actually become. Sovereignty transfers are no small deal, yet they're treated in an extremely lightweight/careless way by the parties which decided to pursue the European construction on the current basis at all costs, ignoring the TCE 2005 no or simply not consulting anyone for the TSCG. Exactly why should we accept that treaties which were never accepted in the first place enforce a right-wing economic policy that is more and more rejected? The perfectly valid idea of a necessary European cooperation does not mean that we should say alléluia to every coercitive framework which some people are trying to force down our throats. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 12 2017 22:31 Wegandi wrote: While I wasn't alive at the time, it wasn't too long ago that the 'left' was about localism = empowerment. Since the mid 70s it seems like everything has inched towards one world Government. Now, if you're for local control and power you're an evil racist xenophobe lol. Don't get me wrong, there are those people out there, but just because you're for national sovereignty and local empowerment doesn't mean you're a racist xenophobe. That's just an epithet to try and shut down any coherent debate. It's the lowest of low brow. Besides, if you think the US is dysfunctional due to having disparate ideologies and culture (to an extent) crammed into one body vying for power to rule over everyone and impose their own personal beliefs (which it is), implementing the same non-sense system on an even more disparate group of people and nations is beyond dumb. All you're going to accomplish is more conflict and strife, not less. There are not many people against the EU as an economic free-trade zone, but politicizing and continentalizing (my own made up word since it's beyond nationalization lmao), the EU will only lead to more ruin imho. I am however, a dumb American who has seen what 50 separate nations (the states) under one Government body (DC) has driven the country into - rife with conflict, hyper-partisanship, etc. If you want some of that by all means keep pushing to make the EU into a federalized nation. Maybe it's just the cultural difference in what we consider "the left" (America --> liberals; Europe --> socialists), but in my country "centralism" has always been a catch phrase that was heavily used against the left. Which is not quite wrong, since the socialists used to believe in centralized planning, centralized economical interventions and state enterprises. And yeah, obviously the socialist left tends to be against big federal rights within a common market. If you globalize the economy, you also have to globalize the government. If you open all the floodgates for capital you have to be incredibly dumb to think you can keep 25% tax on company income, when 50 kilometres east Hungary wants to go down to 9%. There are only 2 solutions: 1) You stop being a socialist and just go with the flow, since you have no control anymore. That's what we have seen happening with social democrats. They are becoming centrists with a focus on liberal politics and no economic topics or other topics for the lower classes, since anything they would want to do would immidiately backfire. 2) You close the floodgates. That's what nationalists and some "far-leftists" (they are really just the true social democrats) want to do. If you don't have control, you take it back, for one reason or another. That's what many working people are voting for right now. Right-wing populists that want to fight anything foreign and far-leftists, that describe the EU as what it is: a neoliberal enforcement spiral, that serves the rich who can use the best laws of each of the member state, have their firm central in Ireland, produce in romania and sell in Germany, while bunkering their money in Switzerland. But I cannot force my employer to garantuee me a 35-hour working week from France, get paid like I was a Norwegian and buy beer for Czech prices. The type of federalism that exists in the EU (and the USA) creates socialism for the rich and liberalism for the poor. One class that gets subventions, that falls comfortable into a social net when their actions would blow up the whole system like in 2008 and one class that is told to fuck off and pay 40-50% of their income to fund these subventions and that funds the cheap foreign labor, that the rich are drawing into the country to make even more profit. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
Turkey told the Netherlands on Sunday that it would retaliate in the "harshest ways" after Turkish ministers were barred from speaking in Rotterdam, as a row over Ankara's political campaigning among Turkish immigrants escalated. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said the Netherlands was the "capital of fascism" as it joined other European countries in stopping Turkish politicians holding rallies due to fears that tensions in Turkey might spill over into their communities. The Dutch government barred Cavusoglu from flying to Rotterdam on Saturday and later stopped Family Minister Fatma Betul Sayan Kaya from entering the Turkish consulate there, before escorting her out of the country to Germany. Dutch police used dogs and water cannon on Sunday to disperse hundreds of protesters waving Turkish flags outside the consulate in Rotterdam. Some threw bottles and stones and several demonstrators were beaten by police with batons, a Reuters witness said. Mounted police officers charged the crowd. The Dutch government - set to lose about half its seats in elections this week, according to polls, as the anti-Islam party of Geert Wilders makes strong gains - said the ministers' visits were undesirable and it would not cooperate in their campaigning in the Netherlands. "If you can sacrifice Turkish-Dutch relations for an election on Wednesday, you will pay the price," Erdogan said in a speech at an awards ceremony in Istanbul. "I thought Nazism was dead, but I was wrong. Nazism is still widespread in the West," he said. "The West has shown its true face." Speaking to reporters before a public appearance in the northeastern French city of Metz, Cavusoglu said Turkey would continue to act against the Netherlands until it apologizes. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said he would do everything to "de-escalate" the confrontation, which he described as the worst the Netherlands had experienced for years. But he said the idea of apologizing was "bizarre". "This is a man who yesterday made us out for fascists and a country of Nazis. I’m going to de-escalate, but not by offering apologies. Are you nuts?" he told a morning talk show. FRANCE CALLS FOR CALM In a statement issued early on Sunday, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Turkey would retaliate in the "harshest ways". The row risked spreading on Sunday as Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen proposed postponing a planned visit by Yildirim this month due to the dispute. The French foreign ministry urged calm and said there had been no reason to prohibit a meeting in France between Cavusoglu and a local Turkish association. Supporting Rutte's decision to ban the visits, the Dutch government said there was a risk of Turkish political divisions flowing over into its own Turkish minority, which has both pro- and anti-Erdogan camps. The diplomatic row comes in the run-up to next week's Dutch election in which the mainstream parties are under strong pressure from Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV). After Turkey's family minister was escorted into Germany, Wilders tweeted: "go away and never come back". Experts said it was too early to tell how events in Rotterdam might affect the election, though the two front runners have both campaigned on tough-on-immigration themes. "If there is any impact, however, it is likely that Geert Wilders and his PVV Party will profit most," said Leiden Professor Joop van Holsteijn in an email to Reuters. The Dutch government cited public order and security worries in withdrawing landing rights for Cavusoglu's flight and Turkey fired back saying the Dutch ambassador to Ankara should not return from leave "for some time". Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Dutch embassy in Ankara and consulate in Istanbul. Police sealed off both sites. www.reuters.com I wonder what the retaliations will be since The Netherlands is the biggest source of Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey. Something they desperately need to finance their current account deficit. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21650 Posts
On March 13 2017 00:42 RvB wrote: www.reuters.com I wonder what the retaliations will be since The Netherlands is the biggest source of Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey. Something they desperately need to finance their current account deficit. Any sanctions or similar action is going to hit Turkey more then the Netherlands so I will put it down as just tough talk from Erdogan. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On March 13 2017 00:31 Big J wrote: Maybe it's just the cultural difference in what we consider "the left" (America --> liberals; Europe --> socialists), but in my country "centralism" has always been a catch phrase that was heavily used against the left. Which is not quite wrong, since the socialists used to believe in centralized planning, centralized economical interventions and state enterprises. And yeah, obviously the socialist left tends to be against big federal rights within a common market. If you globalize the economy, you also have to globalize the government. If you open all the floodgates for capital you have to be incredibly dumb to think you can keep 25% tax on company income, when 50 kilometres east Hungary wants to go down to 9%. There are only 2 solutions: 1) You stop being a socialist and just go with the flow, since you have no control anymore. That's what we have seen happening with social democrats. They are becoming centrists with a focus on liberal politics and no economic topics or other topics for the lower classes, since anything they would want to do would immidiately backfire. 2) You close the floodgates. That's what nationalists and some "far-leftists" (they are really just the true social democrats) want to do. If you don't have control, you take it back, for one reason or another. That's what many working people are voting for right now. Right-wing populists that want to fight anything foreign and far-leftists, that describe the EU as what it is: a neoliberal enforcement spiral, that serves the rich who can use the best laws of each of the member state, have their firm central in Ireland, produce in romania and sell in Germany, while bunkering their money in Switzerland. But I cannot force my employer to garantuee me a 35-hour working week from France, get paid like I was a Norwegian and buy beer for Czech prices. The type of federalism that exists in the EU (and the USA) creates socialism for the rich and liberalism for the poor. One class that gets subventions, that falls comfortable into a social net when their actions would blow up the whole system like in 2008 and one class that is told to fuck off and pay 40-50% of their income to fund these subventions and that funds the cheap foreign labor, that the rich are drawing into the country to make even more profit. You are confusing companies and rich people when talking about policy, which is a mistake. I also have no idea what you mean socialism for the rich and liberalism for the poor. What subventions are you talking about? The poor also benefit, if not proportionally more than the rich, from open borders - otherwise why is over 15% of the Portuguese population living in other EU countries? The European poor can seek opportunities in other EU countries, they benefit greatly from lower prices and availability of goods that the single market brings. In general, the common market drives economic prosperity for all EU countries which favors everyone (with the possible exception of the previously established national elites). Does the single market create tax-rate competition? Yes. Does that mean you have to globalize government? No. It means that competition will create incentives for governments to shape up and create better economic environments for companies and individuals. It is a check on governments, favoring its people. Viewing everything from a class-warfare perspective seriously limits the understanding of political institutions and economic phenomena. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On March 13 2017 01:06 warding wrote: You are confusing companies and rich people when talking about policy, which is a mistake. I also have no idea what you mean socialism for the rich and liberalism for the poor. Who paid for the losses of the banks after the 2008 crisis? The poor also benefit, if not proportionally more than the rich, from open borders - otherwise why is over 15% of the Portuguese population living in other EU countries? Being virtually forced to emigrate from your own country because there's no future for you there given the high unemployement, that's what you call “poors benefitting from open borders”? Does the single market create tax-rate competition? Yes. Does that mean you have to globalize government? No. It means that competition will create incentives for governments to shape up and create better economic environments for companies and individuals. Aka social/environmental/fiscal dumping. Levelling-down/race to the bottom and concurrence as the only ideal is exactly why the EU is slowly collapsing. But viewing everything from a liberal [market] perspective seriously limits the understanding of that phenomenon, hence why people in charge are structurally incapable of changing things and are reduced to useless moral imprecations against “the rise of populism”. | ||
| ||
