|
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 April 04 2017 22:45 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 22:25 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 22:12 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 22:00 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 21:38 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 20:35 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 16:45 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 10:07 bardtown wrote:
What an idiotic comment. The EU caused this by giving Spain a veto over the situation of a territory which it has not had any say in for 300 years. The people of this territory rejected Spanish co-sovereignty by 99%. If anything it is another illustration of how little the EU cares about democracy. It is antagonistic and bullying. What veto ? As far i know this all started because the UK didn't include Gibraltar into the negotiations when it's fiscal exceptionality certainly warrants for it. Klackon is on the money here. Spain has a veto over any deal with Gibraltar. I'm not entirely clear what this means, but presumably it means that a deal can be made with the UK while Gibraltar can be excluded. This has nothing to do with tax. The EU has its own sanctioned tax havens, and if it was about tax then there would be no need to mention Spain specifically, as it would be a matter for the entire EU. Immediately after the EU vote Spain was talking about the sovereignty of Gibraltar again. That is what they are aiming for. It is transparent, and they've stated their intentions explicitly anyway. It would have that veto, if the EU poprossal's would go through intact. Since you are using the present, am i missreading you by chance ? The reason to do so is obvious, trade between Gibraltarians and Linenses is very interwined and as i understand it the EU finds reasonable for Spain to have a higher say on EU - UK trade deals which would affect Gibraltar than other EU countries. The talks about co-sovereignty were mostly about seeing what would the Gibraltarians answer if offered a chance to a special deal where they could keep themselves into the EU (Gibraltarians voted 95% for remain if i am not mistaken). But Gibraltarians response was a no. Be serious. Everybody who is familiar with the context knows what this is about. It's not like if Gibraltar had higher tax rates Linenses would suddenly start attracting international financial services. I am being serious. I don't understand why you find so outrageous for the Spanish goverment to attempt to have a higher say over something that could specifically affect Linenses than let's say Greece. I'm sorry but not even the EU are pretending this is about tax. France doesn't get a veto on Guernsey or Jersey. Stop being disingenuous. And where exactly did i say the word tax in our current exchange ? Just stop talking. Do you even realize that you are the only one talking about taxes ? I had been the whole time talking about trade deals, which is where the veto is suppossed to work.
Yes, I'm sure the people of the region will want to veto free trade with Gibraltar which employs 10,000 of them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 04 2017 21:17 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 20:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Talking of which, for those who don't understand why wanting the end of the EU and NATO is one of the active goals of Vlad's FP, Russian propaganda now rewrites history to say that in fact part of Lithuania belongs to them. Article hereWaiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess). If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. Funnily enough there was a post a few months ago where legalord said that Russia would be justified in invading Estonia. Something about Russians living there treated with unequal rights. Not quite Lithuania, but close enough. It's an illegal immigration argument. If an occupying force resettles a third of your population and replaces it without consent from a legitimate government institution, one could a) kick them out b) give them citizenship (quite a few were military personel) and hope for the best or c) give them a path to citizenship. Estonia chose c), in what is widely considered the best of bad options. about a third are still without citizenship, but those are mostly the older generation. In case anyone was interested.
The other side of it is that every indication, including this post, is that a significant minority of people who currently live in the three countries in question are treated like second-class citizens just for living in a country where they aren't liked (something which indeed should be Russia's problem). It's no wonder that hundreds of thousands of the Russians who lived there left the Baltic countries they lived in. Though it seems to be a common trend given that Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian citizens of the more ethnic kind are also leaving EU-ward like rats leaving a sinking ship. The total population has decreased by what, 20%, since 1991?
(The Biff post is either a troll or genuine ignorance on his behalf, and the fact that even consistently anti-Russian folk speak out against that article should tell you everything you need to know.)
|
On April 04 2017 20:15 warding wrote:How about we focus instead on the tax hells and lower taxes for everyone? 
Takes this from a Dane in one of, if not the, highest tax brackets in the world: there are no tax hells.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 04 2017 23:07 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 20:15 warding wrote:How about we focus instead on the tax hells and lower taxes for everyone? Takes this from a Dane in one of, if not the, highest tax brackets in the world: there are no tax hells.
Except 90% brackets for the rich people.
|
90% tax on $1b leaves you with $100m. Any rich person who thinks he's getting the bad end of that deal, I'm very happy to swap with them.
|
On April 04 2017 22:56 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 22:45 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 22:25 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 22:12 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 22:00 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 21:38 Godwrath wrote:On April 04 2017 20:35 bardtown wrote:On April 04 2017 16:45 Godwrath wrote:
[quote]
What veto ? As far i know this all started because the UK didn't include Gibraltar into the negotiations when it's fiscal exceptionality certainly warrants for it.
Klackon is on the money here. Spain has a veto over any deal with Gibraltar. I'm not entirely clear what this means, but presumably it means that a deal can be made with the UK while Gibraltar can be excluded. This has nothing to do with tax. The EU has its own sanctioned tax havens, and if it was about tax then there would be no need to mention Spain specifically, as it would be a matter for the entire EU. Immediately after the EU vote Spain was talking about the sovereignty of Gibraltar again. That is what they are aiming for. It is transparent, and they've stated their intentions explicitly anyway. It would have that veto, if the EU poprossal's would go through intact. Since you are using the present, am i missreading you by chance ? The reason to do so is obvious, trade between Gibraltarians and Linenses is very interwined and as i understand it the EU finds reasonable for Spain to have a higher say on EU - UK trade deals which would affect Gibraltar than other EU countries. The talks about co-sovereignty were mostly about seeing what would the Gibraltarians answer if offered a chance to a special deal where they could keep themselves into the EU (Gibraltarians voted 95% for remain if i am not mistaken). But Gibraltarians response was a no. Be serious. Everybody who is familiar with the context knows what this is about. It's not like if Gibraltar had higher tax rates Linenses would suddenly start attracting international financial services. I am being serious. I don't understand why you find so outrageous for the Spanish goverment to attempt to have a higher say over something that could specifically affect Linenses than let's say Greece. I'm sorry but not even the EU are pretending this is about tax. France doesn't get a veto on Guernsey or Jersey. Stop being disingenuous. And where exactly did i say the word tax in our current exchange ? Just stop talking. Do you even realize that you are the only one talking about taxes ? I had been the whole time talking about trade deals, which is where the veto is suppossed to work. Yes, I'm sure the people of the region will want to veto free trade with Gibraltar which employs 10,000 of them.
If it isn't in the best interest of linenses, sure, having the possibility to veto is good, as it places Spain in relatively the same terms than the UK when the deal can affect spanish citizens exclusively (Hence Gibraltar).
I still have to see where you find it unreasonable beyond the "spanish boogeyman wants to steal our Gibraltar". They sure want, but not in this particular case, for the moment that was settled the moment Gibraltar denied the chance of co-sovereignty to keep EU membership.
|
Am I the only one who does not get why everyone here is talking about trade? I thought all of this was about divorce and although it might be very provocative from the EU negotiators to emphasize a Spanish veto over anything Gibraltar, given how the EU and the council are structured it has to be clear to everyone that any EU member can kill any deal over any matter. Just the same way that the UK can and what they are provocing with their permanent talk about a trade agreement, which is simply a different matter than on what legal terms to leave the EU and giving the people, the lawmakers and economy enough time to adapt to an internationally unprivileged status on EU soil.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Current leading conclusion on the St. Petersburg bombing is that the culprit was from Kyrgyzstan, likely a Chechen (possibly cooperating with ISIS), likely a suicide bomber. Officials not certain if he is among the dead.
|
On April 04 2017 22:41 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Talking of which, for those who don't understand why wanting the end of the EU and NATO is one of the active goals of Vlad's FP, Russian propaganda now rewrites history to say that in fact part of Lithuania belongs to them. Article hereWaiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess). If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. This looks like normal Russian shittalking, I don't think the Russian government is trying to justify an invasion. Articles in sensationalist tone like this Guardian clickbait are counterproductive because they can make some readers doubt in the crediblity of Western media ("if they're exaggerating the Russian threat to Lithuania, maybe they exaggerated the situation in Crimea too?").
I think the article is worth reading. The fact that nobody took seriously Putin and his goons (and therefore the russian media) started top refer of eastern Ukraine as Novorussia, apparently a tsarist term as early as 2003, is really chilling.
I think if you live in a country bordered by an aggressive disctatorship that is bullying and invading neighbour countries, and where the official media started to say that part of your country in fact belongs to them, you would be very, very worried.
Unless of course the Guardian all made it up, and then I'd love to know what better source of inormation about the situation in baltic countries we have. It's super fashionable to bash quality newspaper because the media is bad, but as far as I know,you don't go much higher in quality than the Guardian when it comes to daily information and it's not precisely their habit to make stuff up.
LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. My little experience for having worked with baltic people for five years, including a Lithuanian guy I see every day is that they are VERY worried about Putin's expansionist policy, that you will of course keep denying even exists against all evidence.
|
On April 04 2017 20:15 warding wrote:How about we focus instead on the tax hells and lower taxes for everyone?
How about we start with revoking arbitrary tax rules that are only made to benefit the rich? You want your child to inherit your stuff? Why would the state care for the reasons why you sell stuff to another person? Stuff gets transferred, tax has to be paid.
You want the state to extend liberal property rights on everyone else who did not co-sign the contract? Then you imply that the state has a certain right to whatever you acquire and own and therefore you should pay to the state for having exclusive user rights to the stuff you want protected by it.
Maybe if we stopped pretending for once that self-proclaimed economic liberals which are all for socialism when it comes to police and military and all about conservativism when it comes to family bonds and differentiating between what a trade and what a heritage and what an income is we could for once have fundamental discussions on how to tax and what for, instead of stupid one liners talking about "lower taxes for everyone".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. My little experience for having worked with baltic people for five years, including a Lithuanian guy I see every day is that they are VERY worried about Putin's expansionist policy, that you will of course keep denying even exists against all evidence.
Your narrow-minded interpretation of all events and your tendency towards hyperbole give you little credibility, and so does your obviously intentionally provocative approach. If you actually wanted my honest opinion, you wouldn't start with:
On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Waiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess).
If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe.
So yeah, you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the situation involved, or you're trolling, or both. Even the people who would generally be inclined to be anti-Russian disagree with what you posted, so I think that even this post is giving you more attention than you deserve.
|
@Biff:
I don't think Guardian made this up. Russians tend to threaten everyone but most of their threats are hollow and this seems like one of those. Would be worrying if it was said by Putin or Lavrov but Russian media and politicians like Zhirinovsky shouldn't be taken seriously. If I recall correctly this guy offered to split Ukraine between Russia and Poland few years ago.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-partition-letter-idUSL5N0ML1LO20140324
|
On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 22:41 Sent. wrote:On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Talking of which, for those who don't understand why wanting the end of the EU and NATO is one of the active goals of Vlad's FP, Russian propaganda now rewrites history to say that in fact part of Lithuania belongs to them. Article hereWaiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess). If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. This looks like normal Russian shittalking, I don't think the Russian government is trying to justify an invasion. Articles in sensationalist tone like this Guardian clickbait are counterproductive because they can make some readers doubt in the crediblity of Western media ("if they're exaggerating the Russian threat to Lithuania, maybe they exaggerated the situation in Crimea too?"). I think the article is worth reading. The fact that nobody took seriously Putin and his goons (and therefore the russian media) started top refer of eastern Ukraine as Novorussia, apparently a tsarist term as early as 2003, is really chilling. I think if you live in a country bordered by an aggressive disctatorship that is bullying and invading neighbour countries, and where the official media started to say that part of your country in fact belongs to them, you would be very, very worried. Unless of course the Guardian all made it up, and then I'd love to know what better source of inormation about the situation in baltic countries we have. LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why.
The Guardian doesn't make it up, but their correspondent in Lithuania relies on the local media. According to some of the comments I've read from people claiming to be Lithuanian, the local media is quite heavily sensationalized and politicized to be 'against Russia'. This, understandably, bleeds through in the article from The Guardian where Lithuanian politicians are quoted, who themselves are also influenced by the local media and take a specific point of view on the matter. You can look at Trump for an extreme example of a politician being influenced by media outlets. Do not think that simply because he is absolutely ridiculous, this does not occur in other politicians in some lesser degree.
People keep blaming the Russian propaganda and certain ex-KGB thugs for spreading certain viewpoints, the like Novarossia thing, but it's not like these ideas didn't exist before then. That they become more prevalent after events such as violent rebellions in Ukraine that represent the other side of these ideas should not come as a surprise but as a logical consequence.
Here is another comment in response to some of the previous comments I posted:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/635oxd/lithuania_fears_russian_propaganda_is_prelude_to/dfrrfs6/
Posted by mrgoditself on reddit
As a Lithuanian myself. I completely agree. As a news source Lithuanian media is total garbage.
You could have seen articles that sounded:
"russian military is at our borders“, or even some retarded articles like "russian tanks already in Kaunas" (don't ask me...)
"invasion is inevitable"
"russia is a threat" (this gets few mentions every week).
What you read here is only a tip of the icerberg of what we ,average lithuanians, get fed daily.
How deep anti-russian propaganda runs in our country I noticed on 2015 Eurovision, when russians had a decent song and the only country (including San marino (San marino has only 33k population)) that did not give ANY points, was Lithuania- that should tell you something. Even articles from our president, when they go viral, get ridiculed how paranoiac and brain washed are we by our allies. While on our facebook news feed, we applaud each other. It's kind of sad. But oh well, if our country continues the way it goes, it's a wasteland either way. from 3,5 millions we are already down to 2,845 millions- we have almost 20% of senile population, indicating that our population will just continue to drop. Young people just keep emigrating (Sorry UK and Norway :/ ). I, myself am planning to finish my masters degree in Lithuania, and enroll in another Masters in UK and try going and building my life from there :/
Hate for russians is our bread and butter.
|
On April 05 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. My little experience for having worked with baltic people for five years, including a Lithuanian guy I see every day is that they are VERY worried about Putin's expansionist policy, that you will of course keep denying even exists against all evidence. Your narrow-minded interpretation of all events and your tendency towards hyperbole give you little credibility, and so does your obviously intentionally provocative approach. If you actually wanted my honest opinion, you wouldn't start with: Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Waiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess).
If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. So yeah, you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the situation involved, or you're trolling, or both. Even the people who would generally be inclined to be anti-Russian disagree with what you posted, so I think that even this post is giving you more attention than you deserve.
For the sake of clarification, what exactly have I said that is utterly ignorant?
That Putin has an expansionist strategy?
That baltic people are worried about it?
That Putin is financing parties that want the end of the EU because a weaker Europe goves him free reign to bully former soviet satellites?
Please specify because I am a bit lost.
|
On April 05 2017 00:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. My little experience for having worked with baltic people for five years, including a Lithuanian guy I see every day is that they are VERY worried about Putin's expansionist policy, that you will of course keep denying even exists against all evidence. Your narrow-minded interpretation of all events and your tendency towards hyperbole give you little credibility, and so does your obviously intentionally provocative approach. If you actually wanted my honest opinion, you wouldn't start with: On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Waiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess).
If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. So yeah, you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the situation involved, or you're trolling, or both. Even the people who would generally be inclined to be anti-Russian disagree with what you posted, so I think that even this post is giving you more attention than you deserve. For the sake of clarification, what exactly have I said that is utterly ignorant? That Putin has an expansionist strategy? That baltic people are worried about it? That Putin is financing parties that want the end of the EU because a weaker Europe goves him free reign to bully former soviet satellites? Please specify because I am a bit lost.
Some people in Europe and the US are also extremely worried about Muslims as a result of media excessively highlighting certain events (and this is not limited to certain channels/websites, although some do take an even more absurd stance on it). Would you say that is a reasonable approach? Do you not see how there are parallels in media-based Islamaphobia and Russophobia? And you might say that people have legitimate reason to fear Russia, but the people who fear Muslims will make exactly the same claims ("just look at the media!" "look at what they do!").
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 05 2017 00:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. My little experience for having worked with baltic people for five years, including a Lithuanian guy I see every day is that they are VERY worried about Putin's expansionist policy, that you will of course keep denying even exists against all evidence. Your narrow-minded interpretation of all events and your tendency towards hyperbole give you little credibility, and so does your obviously intentionally provocative approach. If you actually wanted my honest opinion, you wouldn't start with: On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Waiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess).
If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. So yeah, you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the situation involved, or you're trolling, or both. Even the people who would generally be inclined to be anti-Russian disagree with what you posted, so I think that even this post is giving you more attention than you deserve. For the sake of clarification, what exactly have I said that is utterly ignorant? That Putin has an expansionist strategy? That baltic people are worried about it? That Putin is financing parties that want the end of the EU because a weaker Europe goves him free reign to bully former soviet satellites? Please specify because I am a bit lost.
Are you willing to admit you were trolling with the quoted part? Because I could answer every single one of those concerns but if the response is just going to be dismissive by default I see no point in spending an hour typing it all up.
|
On April 05 2017 00:32 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 04 2017 22:41 Sent. wrote:On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Talking of which, for those who don't understand why wanting the end of the EU and NATO is one of the active goals of Vlad's FP, Russian propaganda now rewrites history to say that in fact part of Lithuania belongs to them. Article hereWaiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess). If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. This looks like normal Russian shittalking, I don't think the Russian government is trying to justify an invasion. Articles in sensationalist tone like this Guardian clickbait are counterproductive because they can make some readers doubt in the crediblity of Western media ("if they're exaggerating the Russian threat to Lithuania, maybe they exaggerated the situation in Crimea too?"). I think the article is worth reading. The fact that nobody took seriously Putin and his goons (and therefore the russian media) started top refer of eastern Ukraine as Novorussia, apparently a tsarist term as early as 2003, is really chilling. I think if you live in a country bordered by an aggressive disctatorship that is bullying and invading neighbour countries, and where the official media started to say that part of your country in fact belongs to them, you would be very, very worried. Unless of course the Guardian all made it up, and then I'd love to know what better source of inormation about the situation in baltic countries we have. LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. The Guardian doesn't make it up, but their correspondent in Lithuania relies on the local media - they reference the media that supposedly spreads Russian propaganda (and gets sued for it, apparently), but there will undoubtedly be media taking the other point of view as well. It seems like this article takes one side as gospel and just scrutinized the other. According to some of the comments I've read from people claiming to be Lithuanian, the local media is quite heavily sensationalized and politicized. This, understandably, bleeds through in the article from The Guardian where Lithuanian politicians are quoted, who themselves are also influenced by the local media and take a specific point of view on the matter. You can look at Trump for an extreme example of a politician being influenced by media outlets. Do not think that simply because he is absolutely ridiculous, this does not occur in other politicians in some lesser degree. People keep blaming the Russian propaganda and certain ex-KGB thugs for spreading certain viewpoints, the like Novarossia thing, but it's not like these ideas didn't exist before then. That they become more prevalent after events such as violent rebellions in Ukraine that represent the other side of these ideas should not come as a surprise but as a logical consequence. Here is another comment in response to some of the previous comments I posted: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/635oxd/lithuania_fears_russian_propaganda_is_prelude_to/dfrrfs6/Show nested quote +Posted by mrgoditself on reddit
As a Lithuanian myself. I completely agree. As a news source Lithuanian media is total garbage.
You could have seen articles that sounded:
"russian military is at our borders“, or even some retarded articles like "russian tanks already in Kaunas" (don't ask me...)
"invasion is inevitable"
"russia is a threat" (this gets few mentions every week).
What you read here is only a tip of the icerberg of what we ,average lithuanians, get fed daily.
How deep anti-russian propaganda runs in our country I noticed on 2015 Eurovision, when russians had a decent song and the only country (including San marino (San marino has only 33k population)) that did not give ANY points, was Lithuania- that should tell you something. Even articles from our president, when they go viral, get ridiculed how paranoiac and brain washed are we by our allies. While on our facebook news feed, we applaud each other. It's kind of sad. But oh well, if our country continues the way it goes, it's a wasteland either way. from 3,5 millions we are already down to 2,845 millions- we have almost 20% of senile population, indicating that our population will just continue to drop. Young people just keep emigrating (Sorry UK and Norway :/ ). I, myself am planning to finish my masters degree in Lithuania, and enroll in another Masters in UK and try going and building my life from there :/
Hate for russians is our bread and butter.
That's very interesting, thanks.
I would put a little objection though; countries surrnounding Russia all have russian minorities that are VERY pro Putin. They are two Georgians in my workplace: one is a girl who doesn't even want to hear the word Russia because of how much she hates the country, the other one is a russian speaking guy who think that Putin liberated the country and that everything the West says is a lie to vilify him and his regime.
Maybe it's the milieu I work in, but the huge majority of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts and so on I know consider Russia as a dangerous bully; my facebook is so full of it it's actually a bit tiring. There are historical reasons and centuries of oppression, but also a reality, which is that Putin's regime is extremely aggressive towards its neighbours that show any will to get closer to the West.
Talks about imminent invasions of baltic states are exaggerated and hysterical, it's never going to happen with the EU and the alliances that protect those countries. My point is that there is a reason Putin is trying actively to support parties that want the EU to go.
|
On April 05 2017 00:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 00:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 05 2017 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On April 04 2017 23:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
LL, accusing people of trolling anytime you don't like something won't further the discussion. I somewhat trust more the correspondant of the Guardian in Lithuania than you in getting to know what people there think, what they are scared of, and why. My little experience for having worked with baltic people for five years, including a Lithuanian guy I see every day is that they are VERY worried about Putin's expansionist policy, that you will of course keep denying even exists against all evidence. Your narrow-minded interpretation of all events and your tendency towards hyperbole give you little credibility, and so does your obviously intentionally provocative approach. If you actually wanted my honest opinion, you wouldn't start with: On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Waiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess).
If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. So yeah, you're either completely and utterly ignorant of the situation involved, or you're trolling, or both. Even the people who would generally be inclined to be anti-Russian disagree with what you posted, so I think that even this post is giving you more attention than you deserve. For the sake of clarification, what exactly have I said that is utterly ignorant? That Putin has an expansionist strategy? That baltic people are worried about it? That Putin is financing parties that want the end of the EU because a weaker Europe goves him free reign to bully former soviet satellites? Please specify because I am a bit lost. Are you willing to admit you were trolling with the quoted part? Because I could answer every single one of those concerns but if the response is just going to be dismissive by default I see no point in spending an hour typing it all up.
You have quoted several posts in which I said several things. I admit teasing you and caricaturing your position in my first post and apologize for that, it was useless and uncall for.
I maintain everything substantial I have said and don't believe any of it was ignorant even though the contributions on that article by aflayer and Sent. were really interesting and shed a not so flattering light on it. It's to hear answers like that that I post here.
As for your point by point refutation of what I have said, I have to say that as much as I appreciate you and the efforts you put to be articulate and convincing (i'm serious), I think I know what your position is and why and I have strong doubts about your ability to look at things objectively when it comes to Russia. I have never even read you admitting that Putin's regime was horrifyingly corrupt or that Russia has anything else than good will towards its neighbours.
You are free to answer and I will read you and answer if I can, but I don't think you have much to bring on the subject of Russia and its influence in this thread. I'm all for constructive contradiction, but we seem to live in different realities, and I'm not that interested in stuff that don't seem to have any remote connection to what's happening in the side of the multiverse I inhabit. I'm happy to discuss, agree or argue about everything else, though.
|
The thing about the Gibraltar question is that any EU country has the ability to Veto the entire deal. All they have to do is first vote No to the final proposal, then vote No to extending negotiations after 2 years. At that point UK is out of the EU with WTO tariffs.
So obviously since 27 countries are going to have to agree in the end some countries have issues that are so important to them that they might veto the entire thing if they are not resolved.
It would be in the UK's best interest to negotiate Gibraltar with the Nordic countries, Polish people living in the UK with France and the Irish border with Italy. Then you could probably reach great deals through divide and conquer. However it would also be incredibly stupid as you then risk a veto from many countries in the end.
What has been done is simply that the EU came together and some countries put their foot down and said "these issues are important to us, you are not discussing them without us". It's perfectly reasonable.
So when discussing the border between Ireland and NI the UK will have to deal with Ireland, when discussing the Gibraltar border they will have to deal with Spain and when discussing Polish immigrants they will have to deal with Poland. I can't even see why this would be an issue.
Of course everyone wants a deal so I expect the EU to privately lean on Spain if they start being unreasonable but it's probably the best way of handling things in the end.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On April 04 2017 23:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 21:17 mustaju wrote:On April 04 2017 20:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 04 2017 19:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Talking of which, for those who don't understand why wanting the end of the EU and NATO is one of the active goals of Vlad's FP, Russian propaganda now rewrites history to say that in fact part of Lithuania belongs to them. Article hereWaiting for a Legal Lord justification of why Putin is a good guy and the EU has to go (so the good guy can has moar countries I guess). If anything it makes it remarkably clear why Putin is supporting anti EU far right politicians all around Europe. Funnily enough there was a post a few months ago where legalord said that Russia would be justified in invading Estonia. Something about Russians living there treated with unequal rights. Not quite Lithuania, but close enough. It's an illegal immigration argument. If an occupying force resettles a third of your population and replaces it without consent from a legitimate government institution, one could a) kick them out b) give them citizenship (quite a few were military personel) and hope for the best or c) give them a path to citizenship. Estonia chose c), in what is widely considered the best of bad options. about a third are still without citizenship, but those are mostly the older generation. In case anyone was interested. The other side of it is that every indication, including this post, is that a significant minority of people who currently live in the three countries in question are treated like second-class citizens just for living in a country where they aren't liked (something which indeed should be Russia's problem). It's no wonder that hundreds of thousands of the Russians who lived there left the Baltic countries they lived in. Though it seems to be a common trend given that Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian citizens of the more ethnic kind are also leaving EU-ward like rats leaving a sinking ship. The total population has decreased by what, 20%, since 1991? (The Biff post is either a troll or genuine ignorance on his behalf, and the fact that even consistently anti-Russian folk speak out against that article should tell you everything you need to know.)
Using a page from your own book - what you just posted was without factual basis, non-citizens are not second class citizens any more than illegal immigrants are citizens, and while this has problems, everything else would be worse. Baltic population decrease has several reasons, but this is misdirection on your behalf. You remain a deplorable poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
