European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 724

On March 21 2017 06:30 OtherWorld wrote:
So far, Macron sounds fake except when he gets a bit excited/aggressive, in which case he sounds less fake ; Fillon sounds tired and bored ; Hamon sounds a bit tired but serious/knowledgeable, and surprisingly ready to take the fight head-on ; Mélenchon sounds globally good, especially when attacking others, but less clear when explaining his own platform ; Le Pen sounds like an angry bartender.

On March 21 2017 07:06 nojok wrote:
I can't stand Le Pen, pointing problems, identifying some wrong reasons for said problem, don't propose a solution.

On March 21 2017 07:17 maybenexttime wrote:
Economic Left/Right: -2.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95

I wonder how some of the questions made it into this poll...

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
"When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."
"Astrology accurately explains many things." (REALLY? Is that a right- or left-wing view? I have a hunch that according to the poll it's the former...)
"Some people are naturally unlucky." (Are we talking about superstitions or people being born into bad circumstances?)
"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers." (I know the intention behind this question, but what if I think the same should apply to fathers?)

On March 21 2017 07:52 Nyxisto wrote:
Kind of disappointed with Melenchon's positions on Europe. France is not supposed to be responsible for European nuclear deterrence and we should renegotiate cold war borders? wth

I surely don't want nuclear proliferation in Europe or anywhere else.

On March 21 2017 08:28 TheDwf wrote:
Do you speak French fluently?
I had never heard his proposal about this “border conference,” but the goal is obviously to make sure that they're stable and don't generate (further) conflicts. I think he fears what stupid nationalist leaders could do there, hence why he doesn't want France to commit our nuclear power if troubles arise at the East.
He's against nuclear proliferation (not sure why you evoke this?).

On March 21 2017 08:37 Nyxisto wrote:


Speaking skills aren't that good any more but I can still read/listen. I just don't see how these informal systems are going to work out. With the UK leaving and French hypothetically leaving there would definitely be a call for someone else to pick up the torch in Europe.

French defense, especially nuclear deterrence and seat in the UN sec. council is a very important backbone and without it I see Europe drifting back into regionalism where everybody arms up separately. I think European defense should be one of the least controversial topics.

On March 21 2017 08:37 Nyxisto wrote:


Speaking skills aren't that good any more but I can still read/listen. I just don't see how these informal systems are going to work out. With the UK leaving and French hypothetically leaving there would definitely be a call for someone else to pick up the torch in Europe.

French defense, especially nuclear deterrence and seat in the UN sec. council is a very important backbone and without it I see Europe drifting back into regionalism where everybody arms up separately. I think European defense should be one of the least controversial topics.

On March 21 2017 10:50 bardtown wrote:

If France leaves it will still be in the UN security council and NATO. Same for the UK. European defence would be uncontroversial if the EU wasn't trying to militarise and undermine the very balance that has kept Europe safe.

The UK is far and away the most stalwart European country in terms of opposition to Russia and the most active in eastern Europe. That isn't changing, so when people use it as a justification for the EU army that should give you real cause for concern, because it's a lie.

On March 21 2017 12:42 Nyxisto wrote:


In the UK you have people like Corbyn who openly want to get rid off nuclear deterrence. Admittedly Corbyn winning anything isn't exactly likely but many of the parties campaigning against EU institutions are also isolationist and have indicated that they might not be committed to universal defense of Eastern Europe (Trump) or campaign on disarmament. Many of them have ties to Russia.

I'm not saying that this is insanely likely and that it will be a problem in the next five years, but the protective umbrella we have is nothing we should take for granted. And if it goes down we might see many small countries developing these capabilities. Not to mention that there are also economic benefits to unifying European defense. We produce everything tenfold at extreme cost right now. Integrating the EU military defenses once established would pretty much also end the threat of any intra-EU conflict.

Poland's defence minister accused European Council President Donald Tusk of working with Russia's Vladimir Putin to harm Polish interests in connection with a 2010 plane crash that killed President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others in Russia.

The ministry notified the military department of the National Prosecutor's Office on Monday that it suspected Tusk, who was prime minister at the time, of an "abuse of trust in foreign relations".

A spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office confirmed the wording, which amounts to an accusation of diplomatic treason.

Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz told the Gazeta Polska Codziennie daily on Tuesday: "Tusk made an illegal contract with Vladimir Putin to the detriment of Poland and should bear criminal responsibility for that."

The notification covers the period from April 10, 2010, when the plane crash happened in Russia's western city of Smolensk, to 2014, when Tusk took up his current post, in which he chairs summits of EU leaders.

Macierewicz alleged that before the crash, a contract to carry out maintenance in Russia on the Tu-154 plane was arranged by Tusk to be given to "a friend" of Putin.

"It's not about negligence, it is about a criminal offence," the minister said.