European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 894

On June 15 2017 03:36 RvB wrote:
The state of emergency is disproportionate. It's supposed to be used in cases of civil unrest, war or natural disasters not against terrorists who drive a truck in a crowd. Terrorism is aweful but it's danger is relatively limited. The powers acquired under a state of emergency are supposed to be temporary for a very good reason. Making them permanent is a hit to the rule of law. You're empowering the executive without any proper oversight.

This is exactly the time for extensive academic discussion. Reason and well thought out plans to counter the terroristic threat is what's needed. Not symbol politics based on fear. Things like updating intelligence laws to the digital age will be much more useful in countering terrorism (and improving intelligence in general).

On June 15 2017 03:54 a_flayer wrote:

That sounds a lot like intrusive spying on private communications, and is no better than codifying a 'permanent state of emergency' into law.

Can you please explain how you reckon that "updating intelligence laws to the digital age" will prevent people from driving trucks into crowds? I do not see the link between these two specific subjects. As far as I can tell, most of the people who do these things are already seem to be known as liabilities to the authorities, but we still cannot prevent them from acting.

All these things that are happening to "deal with terrorism" are patchwork solutions at best. It's like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Yeah, you may suppress the bleeding on the exterior of the body, but you're still going to die.

On June 15 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
Were I responsible for dealing with terrorism of the European variety, I'd focus on two main issues. The first would be how freely the perpetrators of large scale terrorist attacks move through the continent, a problem of security arrangements or lack thereof. The second is a cultural issue, in how European nations seem to be quite ineffective at integrating their immigrants in such a way that they would be disinclined towards terrorism.

Both have some roots in the general attitude of "Europeans" towards society and are not particularly easy to resolve. For the same reason that the refugee crisis caused a schism within the EU, so would any attempt to resolve this problem.

On June 15 2017 19:13 Acrofales wrote:


So we need more effective organization at a European level to better integrate national police forces, alarm levels, and suspect lists, and we need more effective cooperation on integrating immigrants and homogenizing their opportunities around Europe.



Oh no, how could I be so stupid. We need to cancel the EU altogether, because that will magically solve the above problems!

On June 15 2017 19:49 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:
Those who want's to crash united Europe idea should stop dreaming. Simply get over it. It is much easier to deal with any possible threat altogether. We'll make regulations, rules and anything possible to deal with such problems as nationalism, terrorism, xenophobia.

Some of these problems are temporary, like religion based terrorism (considering religion is also a temporary event in human history/society).

Imagine the odds of EU falling vs Russia falling next decade. Which is more reasonable?

On June 15 2017 19:50 bardtown wrote:

What exactly is this integration of police supposed to address? The problems caused by the integration of borders? Will you solve the costs of integrated policing by integrating taxes, etc? Flawless plan.


What does Russia 'falling' look like? Russia already has quarter of its population in poverty and rampant corruption. I think it's more interesting to ask: what is more likely, Russia rising or the EU falling? I think the EU falling is rather more likely. Support for the government in Russia is still far too widespread for any kind of uprising to succeed short of some catastrophic event. It only takes one or two more of the wealthy EU countries to leave for the project to become unsustainable.

On June 15 2017 20:13 Laurens wrote:
Well, those people should still have voted in the first round.

On June 15 2017 20:16 mahrgell wrote:


But then they would have to vote FOR something and notice that they aren't the majority. They can only form the majority by being AGAINST something and abstaining. And then somehow claiming lacking legitimacy of those who were elected by those who actually used their power to vote.

On June 15 2017 20:14 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:


Corruption is a core of modern russian government and povetry is a consequence, Russia may exist long enough in such conditions, the only thing you need is a powerful king in a white. Russia falling means exactly the same process of USSR falling, when smaller countries running away for independence, considering Russia has very different regions with different religion/culture like Chechnya, Dagestan and etc...

On June 15 2017 21:43 LegalLord wrote:

Got it. If there's a problem, the solution is just to make more Europe, so much that you could positively drown in it!

I mean, I know you're trolling, since rather than making a serious attempt to address the question you just took the "more Europe" approach to deal with anything because evidently you find that amusing. A strategic sort of missing the point considering that there is a good reason why the problems aren't as simple as "work closer together" and "make things better and more homogeneous for immigrants."

On June 15 2017 22:19 Acrofales wrote:

No. Clearly the right solution is to end all European collaboration, because 19th century style nationalism is the way forward.

On June 15 2017 22:19 Acrofales wrote:

No. Clearly the right solution is to end all European collaboration, because 19th century style nationalism is the way forward.

On June 15 2017 22:23 Plansix wrote:

Exactly. Lets go back to all fighting over tiny scraps of land and economic markets. That only lead to us wiping out a couple generations of young people.