|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 13 2017 15:43 a_flayer wrote:
I bring this up only because I think this development is key in saving the EU as a unified political structure. One where people will feel they have some modicum of control over their own direct environment, as well as their 'nation', while still being part of a larger structure that is heavily interconnected in all areas of life, including politics.
While it's not unlikely that some form of inter-EU cooperation agreement will remain out of simple necessity (post-imperial Europe finds itself quite weak compared to nations that developed a contiguous empire in the past), the EU is not that structure and is instead a genuine threat to cooperation on any real level.
Part of the problem is that it just decided to be too much too fast. Let's expand eastward towards a bunch of corrupt and ineffective nations with substantial cultural differences, down to Turkey, let in refugees by the hundreds of thousands just because, and if anyone disagrees they just don't have our enlightened European values.
At this point it's clear that the EU's strategy is just to stoke fear to keep itself alive - Russia is a threat, US is a threat, Turkey is a threat, China is a threat, racists are a threat, hell even Britain is a threat, they all hate our enlightened European values so we have to keep together to fight them off. When the truth is that the EU is a danger to itself far more than any outside force.
But it is absolutely understandable why a largely educated, English-speaking, and pro-globetrotting group of posters would vehemently, almost religiously, oppose any view that supports an end to that rather important aspect of their lives. If the EU were a better organization it wouldn't be trending in that direction though.
|
On June 13 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 05:42 OtherWorld wrote:
I'm still fascinated by your open hatred towards the EU. Are you also fascinated with the many countrymen of yours who also are none too fond of the EU?
Not being a EU die-hard fan =/= systematically calling for the EU to die while you're not even a citizen of a European country.
The truth, as Downfall very well showed, is that while there is a good chunk of French people who are skeptical of the way the EU works at the moment*, there is also a good chunk of French people who understand very well that, if done well, there can be only benefits to a European "union" of some kind and to increased ties between European countries. And these two groups often overlap, in fact.
To give you an idea of how many people like you there are in France, that is, people who are obsessed with the idea of killing the EU independently of anything else and for no valuable reasons, you can look at the Union Populaire Républicaine : that party did 0,92% of the votes in the Presidential elections, and less than that (around 0,6%, I believe) last Sunday. So, to answer your question, yes, I am also fascinated by this < 1% part of the electorate who thinks that the EU is the exclusive reason for all the problems in France right now.
* In fact, the EU is like many French problems where everyone agrees there's a problem, almost everyone agrees what the roots of the problem are, but no one agrees on the solutions and how to apply them.
|
Note that no one is actually touch on any specifics regarding EU institutions, regulations or policies. The whole discussion is always kept in the abstract. It's become fashionable to critique it, but no actual policies or institutions are mentioned.
What exactly is bad? As someone argued, there's a case to make that the Euro was a bad idea but that's not where the discussion is today. Leaving the Euro is an economic shot in the foot for whoever attempts it. Can anyone really argue that the customs union is a definite bad idea? Or EU's competition rules? That a sensible, common fishing policy is bad? Or negotiating international agreements as a whole, with greater bargaining power? The common market? Common CE marking regulations? Common space R&D projects? Freedom of movement? The Erasmus program? The Schengen agreement? The cross-border infrastructure projects? Roaming regulations? Really, what exactly is the problem?
Generally speaking, people who dislike the EU don't dislike it because of the specific institutions or policies. They do so because they live in apparent psychological insulation from the myriad of ways the EU makes their lives better and out of a general sentiment of patriotism or insularity. That was very apparent from the public debate preceding Brexit.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 13 2017 21:18 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 13 2017 05:42 OtherWorld wrote:
I'm still fascinated by your open hatred towards the EU. Are you also fascinated with the many countrymen of yours who also are none too fond of the EU? Not being a EU die-hard fan =/= systematically calling for the EU to die while you're not even a citizen of a European country. The truth, as Downfall very well showed, is that while there is a good chunk of French people who are skeptical of the way the EU works at the moment*, there is also a good chunk of French people who understand very well that, if done well, there can be only benefits to a European "union" of some kind and to increased ties between European countries. And these two groups often overlap, in fact. To give you an idea of how many people like you there are in France, that is, people who are obsessed with the idea of killing the EU independently of anything else and for no valuable reasons, you can look at the Union Populaire Républicaine : that party did 0,92% of the votes in the Presidential elections, and less than that (around 0,6%, I believe) last Sunday. So, to answer your question, yes, I am also fascinated by this < 1% part of the electorate who thinks that the EU is the exclusive reason for all the problems in France right now. * In fact, the EU is like many French problems where everyone agrees there's a problem, almost everyone agrees what the roots of the problem are, but no one agrees on the solutions and how to apply them.
Admittedly the whole "the European Union must be destroyed" shtick is part parody; if that's the way any given person interprets my opinion then why not play the part? It's partially accurate, if deliberately (on the part of Europhiles) misleading. And let's throw some "Russian shill" in there for good measure.
But no, that's not quite how I see it. It would be accurate to say that I do want the EU, the current form of the European project and any evolutions of it on the current trajectory, to dissolve. Not because intra-European cooperation is a bad idea, but simply because the current project has deformed into something far from any worthy cooperation project into something far less respectable. I suppose I could go into more detail, but I'm at work right now so maybe another time.
The idea that you can't talk about macro-issues in other countries is laughable especially in light of that everyone here is perfectly willing to comment on how they see the state of affairs in the US or Russia or China or Turkey or Iran or even other EU countries. Of course, I won't do the disservice of speaking about internal processes such as elections as if I understood the system in depth (I ask), but either you should stick to only talking about the dirt road in the village you live in or admit that this "you ain't one of us" drivel is just that.
We could of course talk about specific EU institutions that are problematic - even the Europhiles could find a dozen they could bash on freely. But it tends to be high level discussion because this goes beyond specific institutions and patches that can be applied to them, into more fundamental issues as to why they cannot be fixed within the current framework of intra-European agreements.
And so, in short, the European Union must be destroyed.
|
On June 13 2017 22:23 warding wrote:
Note that no one is actually touch on any specifics regarding EU institutions, regulations or policies. The whole discussion is always kept in the abstract. It's become fashionable to critique it, but no actual policies or institutions are mentioned.
If you think it is always kept in "abstracts" you really haven't even tried to search for them. If you specifically mean Legalord i agree,not because it's also fashionable to jump against him tho, but because he seems to be overly cautious and ambiguous about it.
|
On June 13 2017 22:23 warding wrote:
Note that no one is actually touch on any specifics regarding EU institutions, regulations or policies. The whole discussion is always kept in the abstract. It's become fashionable to critique it, but no actual policies or institutions are mentioned.
What exactly is bad? As someone argued, there's a case to make that the Euro was a bad idea but that's not where the discussion is today. Leaving the Euro is an economic shot in the foot for whoever attempts it. Can anyone really argue that the customs union is a definite bad idea? Or EU's competition rules? That a sensible, common fishing policy is bad? Or negotiating international agreements as a whole, with greater bargaining power? The common market? Common CE marking regulations? Common space R&D projects? Freedom of movement? The Erasmus program? The Schengen agreement? The cross-border infrastructure projects? Roaming regulations? Really, what exactly is the problem?
Generally speaking, people who dislike the EU don't dislike it because of the specific institutions or policies. They do so because they live in apparent psychological insulation from the myriad of ways the EU makes their lives better and out of a general sentiment of patriotism or insularity. That was very apparent from the public debate preceding Brexit.
Well, if you want something specific: a couple of years ago there were big plans for financing the meat industry. Farms in the Netherlands were subsidized to expand their stables, and then a few years later the plans were scrapped and farmers were left with these useless big stables (and flawed business plans built around those retracted EU subsidies/plans). There's a few more very legitimate complaints that farmers around these parts have (I live in a very rural area that voted primarily for Wilders). Some of them are very directly tied in with the EU, although our own government is exceptionally eager in implementing every plan the EU ever comes up with, even when its not at all required or even wise to do so. Other problems are not so much due to the EU, but still exist and are either ignored or hard to solve (the price of milk is one I hear often).
But going over every failed EU policy seems kind of pointless in the grand scheme of things. There are shortcomings. Personally, outside the realm of failed farming policies, I think this has a lot to do with the whole shift in post-industrial economic dynamics (if you'll allow me to make up a term without knowing what it means).
Here's a very long article that explains what I mean a lot better than I ever could: https://www.sitra.fi/en/publications/from-pause-to-play/#foreword-from-the-pause-to-opportunities
It's about how the world shifted from the pre-industrial age to the industrial age, and how that went with its own kind of hiccups. There was a period of 20 odd years or so where there was a significant lull in the welfare of common people. We're repeating those hiccups now as we are experiencing a rapid advance in technology once again. You have to read the article.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Poorly conceived farming expansions, for that matter, are not essential flaws of the EU. That issue can be fixed. Now perhaps the larger issue could be if the EU constantly has a tendency to have capricious projects like that, it would be worth discussing why that is. But warding would bitch about being too abstract for considering that.
|
On June 14 2017 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Poorly conceived farming expansions, for that matter, are not essential flaws of the EU. That issue can be fixed. Now perhaps the larger issue could be if the EU constantly has a tendency to have capricious projects like that, it would be worth discussing why that is. But warding would bitch about being too abstract for considering that.
Why not just leave the last sentence out?
Also, the article that I linked covers some of "why that is". It's kind of linked in throughout the whole piece.
|
On June 13 2017 15:19 Artisreal wrote:LegalLord 101
I have to quote myself here because it's appropriate again.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 14 2017 00:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Poorly conceived farming expansions, for that matter, are not essential flaws of the EU. That issue can be fixed. Now perhaps the larger issue could be if the EU constantly has a tendency to have capricious projects like that, it would be worth discussing why that is. But warding would bitch about being too abstract for considering that. Why not just leave the last sentence out?
Why?
While the period of globalization/automation that is developing right now is troubling, I think what misses the point is just how poorly positioned the EU is as an organization to address those issues. Everyone goes through those changes, but the EU is not in a great position to address those issues.
|
Emmanuel Macron’s Unfettered Powers
Emmanuel Macron’s grip on political power seems unshakable after the first round of France’s legislative voting on Sunday. Mr. Macron won the presidency of France in May, a mere 13 months after starting his political movement, a remarkable achievement ratified by Sunday’s vote.
Projections indicate that his party, La République en Marche (The Republic on the Move), may win more than 400 seats in France’s 577-seat National Assembly after a final round of voting on Sunday. That would give Mr. Macron the ability to freely enact promised reforms to jump-start France’s lagging economy and encourage job creation, something his three immediate predecessors tried but failed to do.
Sunday’s election does not, however, reflect enthusiasm on the part of a majority of French voters. More than half stayed away from the polls, the highest rate of voter abstention since 1958. And with the political opposition in tatters, and many political novices owing their seats to the president, Mr. Macron could face temptations to abuse executive power.
Mr. Macron has already moved rapidly to bolster security in the face of the continuing terrorist threat by creating a national counterterrorism center at the Élysée Palace, reporting directly to him. He has also drafted a bill, which will be presented at a cabinet meeting on June 21, that would permanently legalize much of the state of emergency declared by President François Hollande shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015.
A counterterrorism center makes sense, given the failure to prevent attacks by individuals undetected when agencies failed to share information. The absence of a role for the judiciary to check the executive’s overarching power, however, is troubling. Even more alarming is enshrining the state of emergency in ordinary law, resulting in a permanent curb on French citizens’ constitutional rights. The bill would allow the police to conduct warrantless searches, place individuals under house arrest, order the wearing of electronic tags or bracelets and demand the passwords of people’s computers and cellphones. Such measures have done little to fight terrorism that existing law can’t accomplish, while doing real harm to citizens’ rights.
The only thing preventing the bill from becoming law may be France’s Constitutional Council. On Friday, the council wisely rejected one vaguely worded provision of the state of emergency that allowed authorities to bar individuals from areas where they might hamper police action, say, by participating in demonstrations.
The council must not allow what was meant to have been an extraordinary, temporary suspension of citizens’ rights to become permanent. Otherwise, the promise of Mr. Macron’s fresh start for France could result in a more repressive republic and set the stage for other abuses of executive power beyond his mandate.
Source
King Macron further concentrating and extending powers in an already bonapartist regime with derisory counter-powers, while the Parliament will be essentially void of any meaningful opposition.
|
On June 14 2017 00:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 00:22 a_flayer wrote:On June 14 2017 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Poorly conceived farming expansions, for that matter, are not essential flaws of the EU. That issue can be fixed. Now perhaps the larger issue could be if the EU constantly has a tendency to have capricious projects like that, it would be worth discussing why that is. But warding would bitch about being too abstract for considering that. Why not just leave the last sentence out? Why? While the period of globalization/automation that is developing right now is troubling, I think what misses the point is just how poorly positioned the EU is as an organization to address those issues. Everyone goes through those changes, but the EU is not in a great position to address those issues.
Maybe it is time to use more words to back up your vague, simplistic and overly broad claims. Try to match the word count of the poster you are responded to, rather than insult them.
|
On June 14 2017 00:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 00:22 a_flayer wrote:On June 14 2017 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Poorly conceived farming expansions, for that matter, are not essential flaws of the EU. That issue can be fixed. Now perhaps the larger issue could be if the EU constantly has a tendency to have capricious projects like that, it would be worth discussing why that is. But warding would bitch about being too abstract for considering that. Why not just leave the last sentence out? Why? While the period of globalization/automation that is developing right now is troubling, I think what misses the point is just how poorly positioned the EU is as an organization to address those issues. Everyone goes through those changes, but the EU is not in a great position to address those issues.
The problem is that local governments aren't being smarter about this than the EU either - see the notion where the Netherlands just more or less blindly follows EU non-binding directives or whatever it was that subsidized these farmers because it brings some cash flow into the Netherlands from Europe, which was probably the main consideration. I don't know, really, maybe I'm underestimating things and there really was a demand for more locally produced meat (the Netherlands processes a lot of meat, more than the UK does in terms of raw tonnage, iirc, and we import a lot of it).
Personally, I'd much rather invest in new farming mechanisms that would increase the yield of meat per acre. Lab-grown meat that doesn't produce methane, horrible living conditions for animals or require a lot of energy to produce in the first place. Of course, there's probably some trade-off to be made here between short and long term goals. Nonetheless, though, the wishy-washiness of how it turned out to be is very damaging to an already fragile part of the economy.
This post really got away from me, lol.
The point is: nobody seems to know what they're doing, as, once again, is touched upon in this article. Specifically, I think Putin actually happened to have the same problem with farmers and the price of milk in Russia before the sanctions hit. In more general terms, the US elected Trump in response to this whole mess... need I say more?
|
On June 14 2017 00:52 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +Emmanuel Macron’s Unfettered Powers
Emmanuel Macron’s grip on political power seems unshakable after the first round of France’s legislative voting on Sunday. Mr. Macron won the presidency of France in May, a mere 13 months after starting his political movement, a remarkable achievement ratified by Sunday’s vote.
Projections indicate that his party, La République en Marche (The Republic on the Move), may win more than 400 seats in France’s 577-seat National Assembly after a final round of voting on Sunday. That would give Mr. Macron the ability to freely enact promised reforms to jump-start France’s lagging economy and encourage job creation, something his three immediate predecessors tried but failed to do.
Sunday’s election does not, however, reflect enthusiasm on the part of a majority of French voters. More than half stayed away from the polls, the highest rate of voter abstention since 1958. And with the political opposition in tatters, and many political novices owing their seats to the president, Mr. Macron could face temptations to abuse executive power.
Mr. Macron has already moved rapidly to bolster security in the face of the continuing terrorist threat by creating a national counterterrorism center at the Élysée Palace, reporting directly to him. He has also drafted a bill, which will be presented at a cabinet meeting on June 21, that would permanently legalize much of the state of emergency declared by President François Hollande shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015.
A counterterrorism center makes sense, given the failure to prevent attacks by individuals undetected when agencies failed to share information. The absence of a role for the judiciary to check the executive’s overarching power, however, is troubling. Even more alarming is enshrining the state of emergency in ordinary law, resulting in a permanent curb on French citizens’ constitutional rights. The bill would allow the police to conduct warrantless searches, place individuals under house arrest, order the wearing of electronic tags or bracelets and demand the passwords of people’s computers and cellphones. Such measures have done little to fight terrorism that existing law can’t accomplish, while doing real harm to citizens’ rights.
The only thing preventing the bill from becoming law may be France’s Constitutional Council. On Friday, the council wisely rejected one vaguely worded provision of the state of emergency that allowed authorities to bar individuals from areas where they might hamper police action, say, by participating in demonstrations.
The council must not allow what was meant to have been an extraordinary, temporary suspension of citizens’ rights to become permanent. Otherwise, the promise of Mr. Macron’s fresh start for France could result in a more repressive republic and set the stage for other abuses of executive power beyond his mandate. SourceKing Macron further concentrating and extending powers in an already bonapartist regime with derisory counter-powers, while the Parliament will be essentially void of any meaningful opposition.
If the opposition bothered to show up to vote they could have limited Macron's power and forced him to compromise to get things done. Instead they shrugged, stayed home and then later complained about how much power Macron gained because no one else showed up.
Welcome to democracy.
Note, I disagree with making state of emergency measures permanent law fixtures.
|
On June 14 2017 01:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 00:52 TheDwf wrote:Emmanuel Macron’s Unfettered Powers
Emmanuel Macron’s grip on political power seems unshakable after the first round of France’s legislative voting on Sunday. Mr. Macron won the presidency of France in May, a mere 13 months after starting his political movement, a remarkable achievement ratified by Sunday’s vote.
Projections indicate that his party, La République en Marche (The Republic on the Move), may win more than 400 seats in France’s 577-seat National Assembly after a final round of voting on Sunday. That would give Mr. Macron the ability to freely enact promised reforms to jump-start France’s lagging economy and encourage job creation, something his three immediate predecessors tried but failed to do.
Sunday’s election does not, however, reflect enthusiasm on the part of a majority of French voters. More than half stayed away from the polls, the highest rate of voter abstention since 1958. And with the political opposition in tatters, and many political novices owing their seats to the president, Mr. Macron could face temptations to abuse executive power.
Mr. Macron has already moved rapidly to bolster security in the face of the continuing terrorist threat by creating a national counterterrorism center at the Élysée Palace, reporting directly to him. He has also drafted a bill, which will be presented at a cabinet meeting on June 21, that would permanently legalize much of the state of emergency declared by President François Hollande shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015.
A counterterrorism center makes sense, given the failure to prevent attacks by individuals undetected when agencies failed to share information. The absence of a role for the judiciary to check the executive’s overarching power, however, is troubling. Even more alarming is enshrining the state of emergency in ordinary law, resulting in a permanent curb on French citizens’ constitutional rights. The bill would allow the police to conduct warrantless searches, place individuals under house arrest, order the wearing of electronic tags or bracelets and demand the passwords of people’s computers and cellphones. Such measures have done little to fight terrorism that existing law can’t accomplish, while doing real harm to citizens’ rights.
The only thing preventing the bill from becoming law may be France’s Constitutional Council. On Friday, the council wisely rejected one vaguely worded provision of the state of emergency that allowed authorities to bar individuals from areas where they might hamper police action, say, by participating in demonstrations.
The council must not allow what was meant to have been an extraordinary, temporary suspension of citizens’ rights to become permanent. Otherwise, the promise of Mr. Macron’s fresh start for France could result in a more repressive republic and set the stage for other abuses of executive power beyond his mandate. SourceKing Macron further concentrating and extending powers in an already bonapartist regime with derisory counter-powers, while the Parliament will be essentially void of any meaningful opposition. If the opposition bothered to show up to vote they could have limited Macron's power and forced him to compromise to get things done. Instead they shrugged, stayed home and then later complained about how much power Macron gained because no one else showed up. Welcome to democracy. Note, I disagree with making state of emergency measures permanent law fixtures.
Lol, Macron would have opposition even with 52% abstention if our voting system made sense, that's completely off the point. Also all those who blame people who abstain while not wondering why they do so make me laugh. Only 25% of this abstention is caused by what we could label as "lack of interest" (i.e. people who prefer to go to the beach or those who are "not interested in politics [at all]"). The historical trend alone forbids to have this superficial individualist and moral view on mass abstention: http://i.imgur.com/lLsAmb7.jpg
|
On June 14 2017 01:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Note, I disagree with making state of emergency measures permanent law fixtures.
Well the state of emergency has been going on for like two years or something, so it would probably be better to at least at some point have it go through the legislation instead of just continuing it indefinitely
|
On June 14 2017 02:03 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 01:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Note, I disagree with making state of emergency measures permanent law fixtures. Well the state of emergency has been going on for like two years or something, so it would probably be better to at least at some point have it go through the legislation instead of just continuing it indefinitely
Or maybe we could simply stop it because it's useless? You're aware that passing SoE stuff under common law means that the political power can basically decide to lock you up in your own home based on nothing but presumptions? In good English that's the end of rule of law. Your legitimism is really scary, man. We're talking about Erdogan-like stuff here. Would you like having your home searched because your neighboor thought your beard was a bit too long and called the police? Would you like quasi-administrative detention at your own home because you were seen in a demonstration?!
|
On June 14 2017 02:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 02:03 Nyxisto wrote:On June 14 2017 01:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Note, I disagree with making state of emergency measures permanent law fixtures. Well the state of emergency has been going on for like two years or something, so it would probably be better to at least at some point have it go through the legislation instead of just continuing it indefinitely Or maybe we could simply stop it because it's useless? You're aware that passing SoE stuff under common law means that the political power can basically decide to lock you up in your own home based on nothing but presumptions? In good English that's the end of rule of law. Your legitimism is really scary, man. We're talking about Erdogan-like stuff here. Would you like having your home searched because your neighboor thought your beard was a bit too long and called the police? Would you like quasi-administrative detention at your own home because you were seen in a demonstration?!
It's hard to evaluate whether it is useless or not because I assume nobody here has actual numbers. Whenever a terrorist attack happens it's easy to say that security has failed, but we don't know how many attacks have been prevented. The measures are also important to give the population a degree of perceived security, a weak state in such a situation could easily increase political extremism.
relevant article on the issue of Macron's powers: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/macron-france-election/529656/
|
On June 14 2017 02:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 02:08 TheDwf wrote:On June 14 2017 02:03 Nyxisto wrote:On June 14 2017 01:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Note, I disagree with making state of emergency measures permanent law fixtures. Well the state of emergency has been going on for like two years or something, so it would probably be better to at least at some point have it go through the legislation instead of just continuing it indefinitely Or maybe we could simply stop it because it's useless? You're aware that passing SoE stuff under common law means that the political power can basically decide to lock you up in your own home based on nothing but presumptions? In good English that's the end of rule of law. Your legitimism is really scary, man. We're talking about Erdogan-like stuff here. Would you like having your home searched because your neighboor thought your beard was a bit too long and called the police? Would you like quasi-administrative detention at your own home because you were seen in a demonstration?! It's hard to evaluate whether it is useless or not because I assume nobody here has actual numbers. Whenever a terrorist attack happens it's easy to say that security has failed, but we don't know how many attacks have been prevented. The measures are also important to give the population a degree of perceived security, a weak state in such a situation could easily increase political extremism.
I am absolutely speechless. We should terminate rule of law simply for the supposed psychological effect on the population of something that security services themselves deem useless?! Terminating rule of law literally for a placebo... I don't know what to say anymore, really.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 14 2017 00:55 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2017 00:43 LegalLord wrote:On June 14 2017 00:22 a_flayer wrote:On June 14 2017 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Poorly conceived farming expansions, for that matter, are not essential flaws of the EU. That issue can be fixed. Now perhaps the larger issue could be if the EU constantly has a tendency to have capricious projects like that, it would be worth discussing why that is. But warding would bitch about being too abstract for considering that. Why not just leave the last sentence out? Why? While the period of globalization/automation that is developing right now is troubling, I think what misses the point is just how poorly positioned the EU is as an organization to address those issues. Everyone goes through those changes, but the EU is not in a great position to address those issues. The problem is that local governments aren't being smarter about this than the EU either - see the notion where the Netherlands just more or less blindly follows EU non-binding directives or whatever it was that subsidized these farmers because it brings some cash flow into the Netherlands from Europe, which was probably the main consideration. I don't know, really, maybe I'm underestimating things and there really was a demand for more locally produced meat (the Netherlands processes a lot of meat, more than the UK does in terms of raw tonnage, iirc, and we import a lot of it). Personally, I'd much rather invest in new farming mechanisms that would increase the yield of meat per acre. Lab-grown meat that doesn't produce methane, horrible living conditions for animals or require a lot of energy to produce in the first place. Of course, there's probably some trade-off to be made here between short and long term goals. Nonetheless, though, the wishy-washiness of how it turned out to be is very damaging to an already fragile part of the economy. This post really got away from me, lol. The point is: nobody seems to know what they're doing, as, once again, is touched upon in this article. Specifically, I think Putin actually happened to have the same problem with farmers and the price of milk in Russia before the sanctions hit. In more general terms, the US elected Trump in response to this whole mess... need I say more?
Though I'm on my phone and fairly busy, I'll give the short version here. Maybe talk later if it's interesting.
I have certainly seen polls that indicate that although the EU is unpopular for a large swath of the population, the local government in all but the first worlders is even less popular. I have been hard pressed to find good data on EU popularity by country with detailed info, but I can accept that trend. Issue is that the EU is much of the reason why such governments are shitty. The analogy I use is colonial masters and local chieftains - with a colonial master, the chieftain gets more powerful and less accountable because their accountability is now to the colonial master rather than to the subjects. Though EU nations aren't quite colonial subjects, the same general principle applies.
As an aside, the Russian farming situation was an unfortunate side effect of rapid industrialization that was compounded by poor policy. By the time things changed, it was more economical to import food than to develop a modern farming infrastructure from scratch. But progress has been made there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
