|
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 June 28 2017 06:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 04:59 Ghostcom wrote:
You should probably read those founding values yourself - i.e. you aren't even quoting the full sentence in your feeble attempt to argue a point I'm not making in an attempt to make me look ignorant. Not only is that a terrible way to build an argument, but, coupled with your apparent ignorance, also ensures that I have no interest in engaging further with you. Treaty of Maastricht, i.e. the founding treaty of the European Union. Second Sentence: This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Put there precisely so that everyone knows what they are participating in. The contract then goes into details, most of which are in the progress of making, yet, although put very prominently into this foundation of the European Union, not (yet) desired by quite a few member states. Like the single currency, the end of all internal frontiers or the common European security and defense policy. Some people may not like these things for very acceptable reasons, yet, it is not "mission creep" of the EU. I am the last person to pretend contracts and property rights have to be accepted and defended forever, regardless of their implications, but people have to acknowledge what the facts first.
Couple of points
1) union is not capitalized - i.e. it doesn't refer to the Union (EU as an institution), but merely a union among multiple groups (i.e. a sense of togetherness which does not necessarily imply integration)
2) The union should be between "the peoples" not between "the governments".
Germany and France has adopted the interpretation in which the above 2 points are ignored. Other countries (famously UK) adopted an interpretation in which the above two points was central. We can argue which interpretation is correct, but your petty attempt at claiming to have the factual one is inappropriate and frankly laughable - especially considering that it is a pretty widely discussed thing among people far more versed in such things than the two of us.
A couple of extra thoughts:
3) Decisions are supposed to be taken as closely as possible to the citizen (which they obviously aren't in the current inception)
4) If we ignore the above points and embrace that "ever closer union" was supposed to mean "creation of an EU superstate" which is what your interpretation essentially ends up at with no explicit limit stated on the "ever closer" then the people who consider EU a project designed to seize the sovereignty of the involved countries are correct - and then we are right back a PoulsenB's post being ridiculous.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not personally against EU. I think EU does more good than bad, and the bad it does can by and large be mitigated by the national politicians. But I also think that those of us who are pro-EU need to take a step back in our rabidness and aggressiveness of attacking those who disagree with us so that we can avoid a BREXIT/TRUMP 2.0 for EU.
|
Parliamentary groups were officially formed today; there are 7 of them. The Prime Minister makes his general policy speech next week, after which a vote of confidence is held. Yes = majority, no = opposition, abstention = between the two.
+ Show Spoiler [Detailed composition] +
+ Show Spoiler [By bloc/party] +
+ Show Spoiler [The seven groups] +
- The PM should get ~400 votes of confidence.
- The right split between the "constructive" ones (the moderate wing) which are basically the right-wing pillar of the majority, and the "historical canal" which officially remains in the opposition.
- The PS claims to be in the opposition, but their 31 députés will act on their own. Most of them should abstain, some will even vote the confidence to the government, others might vote against. An amendment from the left-wing of the PS, stating that députés should vote against the confidence, was refused by the Politburo. "Not voting the confidence" (= abstention possible) was approved by 85%.
- The FN did not have enough députés to make a group (15 are needed). This means that they will get less talking time and power within the Parliament.
Shortly after the back-to-school time, a strike day is already scheduled the 12/09 against the new labour bill.
|
On June 28 2017 08:37 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2017 06:12 Big J wrote:On June 28 2017 04:59 Ghostcom wrote:
You should probably read those founding values yourself - i.e. you aren't even quoting the full sentence in your feeble attempt to argue a point I'm not making in an attempt to make me look ignorant. Not only is that a terrible way to build an argument, but, coupled with your apparent ignorance, also ensures that I have no interest in engaging further with you. Treaty of Maastricht, i.e. the founding treaty of the European Union. Second Sentence: This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Put there precisely so that everyone knows what they are participating in. The contract then goes into details, most of which are in the progress of making, yet, although put very prominently into this foundation of the European Union, not (yet) desired by quite a few member states. Like the single currency, the end of all internal frontiers or the common European security and defense policy. Some people may not like these things for very acceptable reasons, yet, it is not "mission creep" of the EU. I am the last person to pretend contracts and property rights have to be accepted and defended forever, regardless of their implications, but people have to acknowledge what the facts first. Couple of points 1) union is not capitalized - i.e. it doesn't refer to the Union (EU as an institution), but merely a union among multiple groups (i.e. a sense of togetherness which does not necessarily imply integration) 2) The union should be between "the peoples" not between "the governments". Germany and France has adopted the interpretation in which the above 2 points are ignored. Other countries (famously UK) adopted an interpretation in which the above two points was central. We can argue which interpretation is correct, but your petty attempt at claiming to have the factual one is inappropriate and frankly laughable - especially considering that it is a pretty widely discussed thing among people far more versed in such things than the two of us. A couple of extra thoughts: 3) Decisions are supposed to be taken as closely as possible to the citizen (which they obviously aren't in the current inception) 4) If we ignore the above points and embrace that "ever closer union" was supposed to mean "creation of an EU superstate" which is what your interpretation essentially ends up at with no explicit limit stated on the "ever closer" then the people who consider EU a project designed to seize the sovereignty of the involved countries are correct - and then we are right back a PoulsenB's post being ridiculous. DISCLAIMER: I'm not personally against EU. I think EU does more good than bad, and the bad it does can by and large be mitigated by the national politicians. But I also think that those of us who are pro-EU need to take a step back in our rabidness and aggressiveness of attacking those who disagree with us so that we can avoid a BREXIT/TRUMP 2.0 for EU.
The formulation is pretty clear. The EU is the next step. The ever closer union among the peoples of Europe is the simply an acknowledged reality for why the EU is happening, in that contract. Same for the phrase "decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen". In my view they are not, but my country has suscribed to that contract and therefore that - in my opinion plainly wrong - sentence. Therefore it has to be legally acknowledged, even if I - and reality - disagree with it.
France and Germany are pretty much just doing what is written in the explicit goals. Is it forced? Yeah, maybe. Things happen because people take decisions. It's the only way to ever make anything happen.
At least for me the case is as clear as such a bullshit half-logical, non-deductive, based on colloqueal words instead of hardcore definitions can be. Which I give you every freedom to disagree with. As long as we don't create a logical, legal language there is never going to be a right or wrong, just a playground for interpretations.
|
Czech parliament moves to legalise firearm ownership
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40438378
Gun ownership debate moves to Europe. It only takes one country with legal firearms, in concert with Schengen, to undermine the entire continent. Maybe someone from Czech can give some details, i.e. what protections will be in place to stop citizens buying firearms and selling them on the black market.
|
Accepting eastern countries in EU was a big mistake. Most of them live and die by the US way of life since 1989.
|
Uhm what?
Gun ownership is legal in many european/schengen states.
|
"To fend of terror attacks"
I am always wondering how people expect that to go. One guy starts shooting, then other people shoot at that guy, and everyone knows who the bad guy is because the name above his head is written in red?
Also, how the fuck do they reach the conclusion that the security situation in europe is getting worse? Just because terrorism is big in the media does not mean that you are objectively less secure than you were 20 years ago. You are almost certainly safer.
|
The BBC wrote:
The lower house of the Czech parliament has agreed to alter the constitution so that firearms can be held legally when national security is threatened.
The amendment gives Czechs the right to use firearms during terrorist attacks.
It was passed by the lower house by a big majority, and is likewise expected to be approved by the upper house.
The move by parliament is a challenge to EU gun control rules which restrict civilians from possessing certain kinds of semi-automatic weapons.
The EU argues its move is a much-needed counter-terrorism measure.
But the Czech parliament took a different view, arguing that allowing people to bear arms enables them to defend themselves against terrorism.
"We don't want to disarm our citizens at a time when the security situation in Europe is getting worse," Interior Minister Milan Chovanec told parliament on Wednesday.
"Show me a single terrorist attack in Europe perpetrated using a legally-owned weapon."
The Czech Republic has no recent history of terror attacks, although other countries in the European Union have.
The European Commission agreed tougher gun control rules in December - they were approved by EU interior ministers four months later in spite of objections from the Czech Republic, Luxembourg and Poland.
In 2017, there were more than 800,000 firearms - many of them antiques in museums - registered in the Czech Republic, a country with a population of 10.6 million.
Many Czechs in rural areas also carry firearms for use when hunting.
Full text.
I have no idea what furifiwifaki means by the way. Though semi-automatic weapons can be used for sport here, carrying them around US-style (maybe that's the allusion?) isn't allowed.
|
I also love how "There were no terrorist attacks done with legal weapons" is used as an argument to loosen the regulations. Maybe the reason for that is that it is hard to get a legal firearm? Maybe that is a good thing?
So far, there have also been 0 terrorist attacks thwarted by everyone having guns in the USA, but there have been shitloads of people shot in other situations.
This "guns make people safe" idea is simply not based in any reality. They may make some people feel save. But they don't actually make them safer. It is this insane american idea of cowboy justice. The only thing keeping you safe is the colt at your side. Because the Wild West was such a safe place to live in.
|
I think that it is more about feeling safe and the perceived ability to defend onself rather than the factual reduction of danger.
Pollution kills way more people in Europe than terrorism and we happily continue to drive our Diesel cars, live in polluted air and work in closed off buildings.
It is all about the psychology. It doesn't make us safer but some might feel safer and that is quite the strong argument, especially if short term consequences are minor.
|
On June 29 2017 20:56 Artisreal wrote:
I think that it is more about feeling safe and the perceived ability to defend onself rather than the factual reduction of danger.
Pollution kills way more people in Europe than terrorism and we happily continue to drive our Diesel cars, live in polluted air and work in closed off buildings.
It is all about the psychology. It doesn't make us safer but some might feel safer and that is quite the strong argument, especially if short term consequences are minor.
Should not forget the key role played by medias here... They are the ones "choosing" to focus on spectacular, violent deaths; rather than the massive but silent, dispersed damages resulting from the very way our societies are organized.
|
On June 29 2017 20:16 Velr wrote:
Uhm what?
Gun ownership is legal in many european/schengen states.
Yes, we have legal gun ownership in the UK, too. I was just using it as shorthand for less strict controls. The difference is also in the kind of weapons and the intimation that it is the duty of citizens to be armed to defend against terrorist attacks, which is very similar to the attitude of the American right. Maybe they will have Swiss style rules where it's an offence to use your allotted ammunition... maybe they won't.
|
firearms can be held legally when national security is threatened
How does that work? Does your illegal gun become legal for the duration of some guy blowing himself up in Prague? I'll try to look for a different source because this bbc article is very weird.
On June 29 2017 20:15 Furikawari wrote:
Accepting eastern countries in EU was a big mistake. Most of them live and die by the US way of life since 1989.
Hard to deny that there are some significant differencies between our regions but claiming that we're doing anything like Americans is just hilariously wrong.
|
Back to Versailles again... After Putin's visit, King Macron will speak in front of the Congress next week (3/07), the day before the general policy speech of his PM. The president can gather the Congress since Sarkozy's constitutional amendment in 2008. It's supposed to be a rare and solemn event; Sarkozy spoke once in 2009, and Hollande in 2015 after the 13/11 attacks. Apparently, Macron wants to do it each year, à la State of the Union address... Anyway, this was interpreted as a further sign of hyper-presidentialization, and a fairly rude way to short-circuit/marginalize his Prime minister. (The French Constitution states that the PM is the one conducting the nation's policy.) Macron's view is that he sets the goal and the vision while the PM outlines the calendar and the method. Some députés/groups said that they would boycott the Congress, claiming it's useless and disrespectful towards the PM.
Macron won't do the traditional presidential interview of the 14/07 (national day). Journalists started noticing that each time Macron has the choice, he bypasses the press and that his communication is locked. It is absolutely fascinating to watch them slowly realize that their beloved prince is an adept of authoritarian centralism.
The second day at the Assemblée turned out to be a mess. Députés had to elect the Assemblée's Politburo, notably 3 questeurs (administrators who run the budget of the Chamber) and 6 vice-presidents. It took almost 10 hours to get the job done, with a lot of psychodrama. Usually all those posts are shared between the majority and the opposition, but the majority ended up taking them all. Out of the 3 questeurs, the tradition wants that 2 are reserved for the majority, and one for the (biggest group of the) opposition, with 3 pre-arranged candidatures so that there is no vote. This time, there were 4 candidatures; 2 of the majority, one from a right-wing satellite and one from the right-wing opposition. For the third post, EM députés voted for the candidate of the right-wing satellite (they should have abstained to respect the usages), who thus got the post. The right-wing opposition was pissed since they consider that the député elected was not really part of the opposition (EM had sent no candidate against him in his district), even if his group declared to be part of the opposition [in practice they will vote most of the texts, perhaps even the confidence for the government...]. They claimed that "the rights of the opposition were violated" and that "the majority is choosing its opposition," and then boycotted the elections of the vice-presidents. Social-democrats denounced a "power grab" and the radical left also criticized the hegemonic attitude of the majority. Pretty much the whole opposition was pissed.
It's so funny, really... They had like 3-4 posts to hand to the opposition to content them, and they're not even able to do that... Nothing serious at stake, easy rules to follow, and they find a way to mess it up and trigger a war for posts!
|
Italy has threatened to stop vessels of other countries from bringing migrants to its ports.
The warning came as Italy's EU representative, Maurizio Massari, warned in a letter to the bloc the situation had become "unsustainable".
Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni has accused other European nations of "looking the other way".
An estimated 10,000 people are believed to have attempted the journey from North Africa in the past four days.
More than 73,000 migrants have landed in Italy this year, an increase of 14% on the same period last year.
Some 2,000 have died or are missing feared drowned, the UN's refugee agency says, the vast majority attempting the crossing from Libya.
Libya is a gateway to Europe for migrants from across sub-Saharan Africa and also from the Arabian peninsula, Egypt, Syria and Bangladesh. Many are fleeing war, poverty or persecution.
The Italian coastguard takes the lead in co-ordinating rescue operations but many of the vessels run by non-profit groups sail under the flags of other nations including EU countries like Germany and Malta.
An Italian government source told Reuters: "The idea of blocking humanitarian ships flying foreign flags from returning to Italian ports has been discussed. Italy has reached saturation point."
Former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said the Italian public were "exasperated" with the issue and a new long-term strategy was needed.
Rules on disembarking are governed by international law and the EU office on migration said any changes to guidelines should give humanitarian groups time to prepare.
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea dictates that any ship learning of distress at sea must assist regardless of circumstances, and that the country responsible for operations in that area has primary responsibility for taking them from the ship.
It also clearly states that the relevant government "shall arrange for such disembarkation to be effected as soon as reasonably practicable."
For boats departing from western Libya, Italy is likely to be the closest port.
Source
|
I wonder if Merkel is gonna be a concentration camp officer by Erdogan's standards tomorrow for denying him a speech in Germany.
That guy is trump Twitter on cocaine.
|
On June 29 2017 20:36 Simberto wrote:
I also love how "There were no terrorist attacks done with legal weapons" is used as an argument to loosen the regulations. Maybe the reason for that is that it is hard to get a legal firearm? Maybe that is a good thing?
So far, there have also been 0 terrorist attacks thwarted by everyone having guns in the USA, but there have been shitloads of people shot in other situations.
This "guns make people safe" idea is simply not based in any reality. They may make some people feel save. But they don't actually make them safer. It is this insane american idea of cowboy justice. The only thing keeping you safe is the colt at your side. Because the Wild West was such a safe place to live in.
And its not even true,there has been at least 1 terror attack in europe with a legally owned firearm.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/7-killed-15-wounded-in-dutch-mall-shooting/
speaking of the definition of a terrorist attack:do the shootings in the usa at work and schools count as a terror incident or does there have to be a (religious) motive for it to be a terror incident. It just feels weird to have basicly similar simulations with different motives behind it to name 1 a terror incident and the other not.
Its a kinda interesting situation legally i can imagine, as terrorists have fewer legal rights then non terrorists,both in the usa as well as in the eu i think.
|
So, Germany just legalised gay marriage and adoption.
Merkel voted no but it was a "free" vote, the parties didn't give out voting recommondations.
|
On June 30 2017 10:31 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2017 20:36 Simberto wrote:
I also love how "There were no terrorist attacks done with legal weapons" is used as an argument to loosen the regulations. Maybe the reason for that is that it is hard to get a legal firearm? Maybe that is a good thing?
So far, there have also been 0 terrorist attacks thwarted by everyone having guns in the USA, but there have been shitloads of people shot in other situations.
This "guns make people safe" idea is simply not based in any reality. They may make some people feel save. But they don't actually make them safer. It is this insane american idea of cowboy justice. The only thing keeping you safe is the colt at your side. Because the Wild West was such a safe place to live in. And its not even true,there has been at least 1 terror attack in europe with a legally owned firearm. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/7-killed-15-wounded-in-dutch-mall-shooting/speaking of the definition of a terrorist attack:do the shootings in the usa at work and schools count as a terror incident or does there have to be a (religious) motive for it to be a terror incident. It just feels weird to have basicly similar simulations with different motives behind it to name 1 a terror incident and the other not. Its a kinda interesting situation legally i can imagine, as terrorists have fewer legal rights then non terrorists,both in the usa as well as in the eu i think.
As far as i know, it is pretty easy.
If it is brown people doing it, it is terrorism.
If it is white people doing it, they are lone mentally unstable teenagers.
On June 30 2017 16:57 Velr wrote:
So, Germany just legalised gay marriage and adoption.
Merkel voted no but it was a "free" vote, the parties didn't give out voting recommondations.
Good News! Was mostly symbolic, there already were civil unions with the same rights for gay people, but still, definitively necessary and good news.
|
On June 30 2017 16:57 Velr wrote:
So, Germany just legalised gay marriage and adoption.
Merkel voted no but it was a "free" vote, the parties didn't give out voting recommondations.
The SPD, left and greens were expected to completely approve it, and so they did. However, I wonder if the vote was also "officially free" for their MPs. Because I only read that Merkel declared the vote to be "free" for the CDU/CSU MPs, and I read nothing about the other parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1FrhPqd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZgEg6Rn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e70MQ1B.jpg)
