EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 883
| 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. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On June 03 2017 19:55 warding wrote: 1) Doesn't that method have advantages though? 2) Like it makes it easier to govern, individual members of parliament become more accountable to their districts rather than their parties and the people actually have a say on who gets elected to parliament? 1) Yes, of course : - It creates a massive distortion between the society and the Assemblée, which allows the ruling and upper classes to routinely ignore 40% of the country. - As the dominant party, you can govern alone with your faithful satellites (which only exist because you leave them room). - You can totally and radically ignore the opposition during 5 years. - It destroys third forces, the far-right, newcomers, radical parties, etc. Basically it's a perfect lock for dominant parties. Before it was the PS and the UMP, now it's the result of their ongoing fusion (EM). Because of that, social-democrats could also pretend to be left-wing during all their years in the opposition (while they should have made their right-wing coming out earlier with a German-like system, for instance). Since you don't need to participate at all so that "the other side" passes bills, even when you actually agree, you can pretend to be an opponent in a pure posture. 2) - Accountability doesn't exist in France. - In practice it creates some local baronies where people are elected for decades (some people who finally leave this year were reelected since 1981...). - Party discipline still locks the system, it took dozens of right-wing measures to trigger a small revolt within the social-democrat group, with ~10% of them refusing to vote the confidence to Valls' second government. If you play the maverick, the party can simply threaten to give the investiture to another person the next time. Because of stuff like this or local rivalries, there are dissidents in a few districts. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Purely proportional systems give people who say 80% of every district does not want to see in government 20% of representation, and it might even give them disproportionate power as a coalition partner. In the French system you'd not get any seats, which I think is fair. If a large part of the population absolutely rejects you that should be reflected strongly in the result. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 03 2017 15:57 Big J wrote: Not gonna deny that, but in general media is simply all about sensation. It's always superduperinteresting to publish an attack of someone on something. I mean, that's not new and Russia-specific. It's been the story of right-wing populism, you throw out something insane, you get an uproar and coverage by all media of how stupid what you said is and then claim that "liberal media" is silencing you. "You can't even say that anymore." Media is picking up every refugee crime allegation nowadays, whether it is true or false you will rarely read. It's a general media problem, the more dramatic your claim, the more coverage you get. Truth is boring. Yes, but it is important that this is noted and taken into account by reasonable people, which is why I like to highlight it. How many liberals are spewing all sorts of hatred towards Russia nowadays based on essentially nothing more than a frenzied media rumour mill, while condemning the far-right for their xenophobic vitriol who have taken their own extremist position as the result of that same frenzied media? The whole thing seems completely out of whack to me. The concepts of post-truth and alternative facts are not in the least limited to the likes of Trump, Russian media and conservatives. (Cue the "but the other side is worse than my side" responses - also known as "what about what about what about!!!!") To put it another way, I saw an interview with Putin the other day where he said that western media and politicians are essentially making up a Russian threat, scaring themselves through that, and then basing policy off of that. This seems like it is very similar to the concept of European nations banning Islamic headgear and things to basically oppress Muslims, or the election of Trump as a whole and the rise of the far-right - which is essentially happening as a result of the scaremongering in the media regarding Islam. I mean look at this: + Show Spoiler + Brian William asks Senator Al Franken "Which is the bigger threat, climate change or Putin?" To be fair, he does add that it may be an unfair construction (although I'm not sure what exactly he means by that, specifically), and Franken at least responds sensibly. However, even asking the question seems a little absurd to me if you actually take into account all of the facts surrounding even the evillest and most threatening of things that Russia has done (Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Syria). Unfortunately, people hardly ever do take all of the facts into consideration about these things because of the heavy polarization/bias/sensationalism in the media. Not to mention, as I said before, many western leaders are putting ISIS and Russia on the same level as threats to global stability, which is just ridiculous. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21755 Posts
On June 04 2017 01:42 a_flayer wrote: Yes, but it is important that this is noted and taken into account by reasonable people, which is why I like to highlight it. How many liberals are spewing all sorts of hatred towards Russia nowadays based on essentially nothing more than a frenzied media rumour mill, while condemning the far-right for their xenophobic vitriol who have taken their own extremist position as the result of that same frenzied media? The whole thing seems completely out of whack to me. The concepts of post-truth and alternative facts are not in the least limited to the likes of Trump, Russian media and conservatives. (Cue the "but the other side is worse than my side" responses - also known as "what about what about what about!!!!") Nothing more then a frenzied media rumour mill? Did the Crimea invasion not happen? Does the proxy-war in eastern Ukraine not exist? Has Russia not threatened numerous countries around it with war if they sought closer relations with the west? Russia has more then earned the ire directed at it. Act like a hostile power, get treated like a hostile power. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 04 2017 02:01 Gorsameth wrote: Nothing more then a frenzied media rumour mill? Did the Crimea invasion not happen? Does the proxy-war in eastern Ukraine not exist? Has Russia not threatened numerous countries around it with war if they sought closer relations with the west? Russia has more then earned the ire directed at it. Act like a hostile power, get treated like a hostile power. Oy vey. And Islam has done plenty to earn the ire of the far-right, has it not? All them Islamic terrorists. For gods sake, man. Try to understand what I am saying. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
What you're doing is deflecting by talking about some e-mail scandal that nobody cares about. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And I don't think you're doing the argument many favours by comparing Russia to a crazy caliphate | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Debating Crimea is of course pointless, so I'm not even going to bother. But I'm glad we got that bit squared out, that it's about precious Europe rather than about border changes. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 04 2017 02:46 Nyxisto wrote: wait what, forcefully altering borders is fucking terrible and I think ISIS is a terrible organisation, was that up for debate at any point? a_flayer implied that criticising Russia for its behaviour is akin to the far-right attacking Muslims in Europe. But Muslims in Europe are not building a caliphate, they're not all members of ISIS. Russia is annexing part of Ukraine, with the full power of the Russian state behind it. How is that a legitimate comparison? My comments are specifically about using events as scaremongering in the media and heating up the public's hatred and vitriol towards Russia and Islam. Everywhere you go in the media regarding this subject, there's politicians or other people showing a very one-sided explanation of the events that occurred surrounding Crimea and Ukraine. People saying that it's all just Russians troops and arms that are being used to fight in Donbass. People saying that all the anti-Maidan protesters were paid protesters (does "them libruls are all paid protesters!" sound believable to you as well?). People suggesting that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, leaving out the notion that is not what Crimeans want even according to polls conducted by the UN before Euromaidan went down, let alone what it would have looked like after Euromaidan. But, no, that's not important. It's important, however, that the borders changed. That is the danger. People willingly leaving an unstable country. We must be angry about it! Similarly, everywhere you go in the media, Islamic terrorism is constantly highlighted. And it's once again essentially a very one-sided affair. Nevermind the fact that Americans and western invasions or weapon sales are responsible for countless more deaths of Muslims - no, it's all about the precious little kids that died in Manchester. Do we ever see the names and faces of the people that die by western arms sold to Saudi Arabia or weapons given to rebels in Syria that subsequently join some extremist faction "because the situation very complex"? And it's easily justified by saying "events closer to home are more important" etc, etc. But that is not the point. The point is that as a result of this, you get hatred and vitriol towards certain groups of people. Whether the hated people are a country or a religion is irrelevant. The point is the influence on public opinion through this kind of widespread reporting, and it is inspiring hate, bigotry, nationalism, etc. Both of these things are a problem in that it results in geopolitical actions taken by both sides of coin: we drop more bombs on Muslims -> they become more radicalised and conduct more terrorism -> we drop more bombs as response to that. We send more troops to the Russian border -> they send more troops to their borders -> we expand NATO -> they feel inclined to secure one of their military basis in a region that wants to join them anyhow -> we send more troops, sanctions. Even if the events as I list them do not accurately match up to time lines in reality, can you please just look past that and realize what I am getting at with this? Everything that happens is a response of something else happening. They built defensive missile systems in the past, so we built cluster nuclear bombs to counter that, etc. It's a vicious cycle of escalation, and it is partially fuelled by sensationalist/biased/polarized media influencing public opinion. On both of the events that I am comparing, none of this - from the media influencing public opinion by sensationalist reporting, to geopolitical actions taken by both sides - is going to de-escalate the problems that exist. That is what I am saying. But even you guys just respond "well its justified to do as we do it from our point of view!" when it comes to Russia, even if you might not agree with bombs and invasion in the Middle East. And so the escalation continues. Lets take the blindfold from our eyes. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
But this is not the case in regards to Russia. I'm not angrily or myopically pointing at Russia or condemning Russian minorities in Germany, but simply recognising that Russia has set out, often publicly, goals that are a direct threat to us. They do not recognise international borders, the government sees Russia as a historical empire on a mission rather than a modern state and they are willing to aggressively intervene to make that clear. Ukraine is just one of many conflict zones they have created over the years. The 'will of the people' is no excuse. Regions are subject to their states, this is true for Crimea, Catalonia and Scotland. Unilateral independence is a disaster for everybody involved. There is no vitriol in this, Russia is not a suicidal maniac in a truck. They're a state with an army, an intelligence branch and nuclear weapons and we'd be very foolish to not treat them like this. In this case the threat isn't primarily symbolic. And we also can't de-escalate at all costs when we are not even the ones escalating anything. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 04 2017 03:50 Nyxisto wrote: The 'will of the people' is no excuse. Regions are subject to their states, this is true for Crimea, Catalonia and Scotland. Unilateral independence is a disaster for everybody involved. I'm just going to drop the names of Palestine and Kurdistan. Or maybe Taiwan? There is a certain point at which regions that are otherwise part of a larger state are allowed to make their own independent decisions, is there not? Didn't the west encourage Chechnya to exist as its own independent state at some point in history? You have your opinions, I have mine, I suppose. On June 04 2017 03:50 Nyxisto wrote: There is no vitriol in this, Russia is not a suicidal maniac in a truck. They're a state with an army, an intelligence branch and nuclear weapons and we'd be very foolish to not treat them like this. In this case the threat isn't primarily symbolic. And we also can't de-escalate at all costs when we are not even the ones escalating anything. So you are denying that the west encouraging an undemocratic ousting of an elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine was any type of escalation on our part and that the Russian annexation of Crimea was a direct response to these events unfolding in the way that they did? It was all just Russia causing the escalation? And while "will of the people" on its own is may not be an excuse to you, do you think that Russia would have acted as such if it was all pro-EU Ukrainians living there? The "will of the people" is something to take into account. Not to be ignored in favour of your own geopolitical interests (keeping Russia out of Crimea). You might not be particularly vitriolic, but if I read comments on articles about Russia then I am instantly reminded of far-right comments on articles about Islamist terrorist attacks. "We must do something!" "We have to fight back!" "Fuck Russia!" etc. And look at this headline and introductory paragraph of this article. This is responsible media reporting on Russia and not at all pointless sensationalism to you because they are such a threat? Vladimir Putin vows to eliminate NATO threat if Sweden joins Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed deep opposition to the idea of Sweden joining NATO, calling its potential membership of the U.S.-led alliance a “threat” that would need to be “eliminated.” “If Sweden joins NATO this will affect our relations in a negative way because we will consider that the infrastructure of the military bloc now approaches us from the Swedish side,” Putin told state news agency Itar-Tass. “We will interpret that as an additional threat for Russia and we will think about how to eliminate this threat.” Source Putin never vowed to eliminate the NATO threat. He said they will think about how to take this geopolitical shift of NATO into account. How is that headline even remotely justified? It's the same sort of absurd media sensationalism as the sensationalism surrounding Islamic violence, even if it does not play out in exactly the same way. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 04 2017 04:36 a_flayer wrote: I'm just going to drop the names of Palestine and Kurdistan. Or maybe Taiwan? There is a certain point at which regions that are otherwise part of a larger state are allowed to make their own independent decisions, is there not? Didn't the west encourage Chechnya to exist as its own independent state at some point in history? You have your opinions, I have mine, I suppose. The Palestinian and Kurdish situation is a violent mess that has produced countless of victims and gotten nowhere. This is not something to emulate. For working independence there must be a formal process that includes mutual recognition. Independence by force is bloody and miserable. Taiwan would do good to not question the one China policy. They are quite autonomous within China. For a similar opinion, read this piece by Hongkong's last British major, who looks critically at the independence movement. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hong-kong-independence-movement-by-chris-patten-2016-12 So you are denying that the west encouraging an undemocratic ousting of an elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine was any type of escalation on our part and that the Russian annexation of Crimea was a direct response to these events unfolding in the way that they did? It was all just Russia causing the escalation? And while "will of the people" on its own is may not be an excuse to you, do you think that Russia would have acted as such if it was all pro-EU Ukrainians living there? The "will of the people" is something to take into account. Not to be ignored in favour of your own geopolitical interests (keeping Russia out of Crimea). Yes, there isn't any evidence that the West manipulated Ukraine into ousting Yanukovych, his government was simply a mess and the country has not made significant progress in almost two decades, so this is what you get. To blame this on the West borders on paranoia. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
The conversation underlines mounting US frustration at the EU’s position on the ongoing democracy protests in Ukraine. The EU has held back from joining US threats to impose sanctions should the Ukrainian regime violently suppress the protests. In the tapes, Nuland and Pyatt discuss the upheavals in Ukraine, and President Viktor Yanukovych’s offer last month to make opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk the new prime minister and Vitali Klitschko deputy prime minister. Both men turned the offer down. Nuland, who in December went to Independence Square in Kiev in a sign of support for the demonstrators, adds that she has also been told that the UN chief, Ban Ki-moon, is about to appoint a former Dutch ambassador to Kiev, Robert Serry, as his representative to Ukraine. “That would be great I think to help glue this thing and have the UN glue it and you know, fuck the EU,“ she says, in an apparent reference to differences over their policies. “We’ve got to do something to make it stick together, because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it,“ Pyatt replies. Nuland was in Kiev on Thursday for a meeting with Yanukovych, who told her that he wanted to quickly adopt constitutional changes called for by pro-Western demonstrators. Source Manipulated is obviously too strong a word (and one that I never used), but why was the US through Nuland involved in this matter at all? They should have left this matter to Ukraine and the two major regional powers (EU & Russia) to find a diplomatic solution to the economic matters that were being discussed at the time (you know, the economic treaty with the mention of security interests in the fine print [which will obviously quickly turn the Russian gaze towards Crimea], which was delayed even after the government was ousted because it didn't make economic sense to push for it immediately, even though the protests were partially about the announced delay). I can only assume that Russia had much more information on the details regarding the level of US involvement, since their hackers and spies seem to be everywhere, as the US themselves have admitted. But even without that information, from a neutral perspective, I can certainly see why they felt inclined to act with regards to Crimea. Then, of course, begin the justifications on their part in order to be able to take those actions, and I'd say there's at least some legitimacy to those as well. Even if I don't necessarily agree with how it unfolded. But, no, we must obviously make the lives of Russian people more difficult through sanctions and whatnot because their government acts independently and not always in accordance with our own interests (why on Earth would it? Even the US, our supposed ally, doesn't always act in our interests). We must vilify them endlessly in the media, suggesting that they intend to attack us and are working hard to undermine western democracy at every turn. It's absurd. Overall, it genuinely appears to be a fairly one-sided tale in the media to me. You often have to dig pretty deep in western media to find more nuanced accounts of the events that take place. It's an unfortunate situation, I think. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
James Clapper: And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. Source Tell me again how this is a reasonable threat assertion. Holy shit man. Apparently Russians have a genetic problem. Where did I hear that one before? It sounds so familiar somehow. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Poll: Russia... ...is governed by a jingoistic autocracy that poses a threat to the rest of Europe (14) ...has been unfairly treated in the Western media. (2) 16 total votes Your vote: Russia... (Vote): ...has been unfairly treated in the Western media. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
And you know, with regards to your poll as it is: it's a little of both. They are treated unfairly, AND they have policies that do not match with our interests. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBYO87FXcAAIvNv.jpg)
