EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 998
| 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. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9304 Posts
On November 19 2017 01:41 pmh wrote: Thing with defense spending is also that countries want to spend there where it also helps their own economy,either directly or indirectly by agreement,which I think is a big reason why it will be difficult to get countries to fully commit and share the power to decide what and where to buy. Depends on how you look at it. Some think it can be beneficial to fuse the national manufacturers into something bigger. This would let us spend more money on bigger, mutually beneficial projects. The downsides are that sometimes you have to spend on stuff you don't need (Czechs really care about navy) or spend more than you want (like Ireland would, this is why they opted out). Some also consider the nation-state outdated and try to get rid of any aspects of it like independent military whenever you let them into power. Others consider military industry as a matter of national security and don't want foreign actors anywhere near it. Some of them would probably be okay with a lower level of integration, but it's hard to please everyone when the economic differencies are so huge. You either give a disproportionate amount of influence to smaller countries or expect them to accept a situation where they can be simply ignored when deciding on what kind of stuff we want and where we want it produced. Joint operations yes,but they do that already within the nato. I think nato is fine for now as organization for europes defence and I don't see how a European army would be beneficial at this point for any of the countries involved. France likes to send its soldiers to Africa once in a while and you can't use NATO for that. I don't think the treaty covers interventions like that (or the potential intervention in Ukraine). Yes I know Afghanistan is in Asia, but the excuse was that the first strike happened on NATO territory. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
FDP apparently just cancelled the coalition talks. Lindner wtf are you doing | ||
|
virpi
Germany3599 Posts
The whole "Jamaica" thingy was destined to fail from the get-go. CSU and Grüne are too far apart. Lindner also wanted to avoid the failure that were the 2009 negotiations. Looks like we get a re-election. Fun times ahead. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
This coalition was bound to fail, all four parties (yes, CSU under heavy pressure has to be seen as an independent negotiator) were way too far off each other. Continuing the negotiations forever and eating every deadline showed, that this was not going happen. Also the fdp said, that they would ask their members to agree to any coalition. But their base is highly against any cooperation with the greens. I expect a black/green minority government tolerated by the spd. I do not think selfdissolving the bundestag will find a majority. Union and SPD might lose even more. Under the pressure of the polls, people afraid of losing their seats will forge a government that this country deserves, but not needs. | ||
|
ShiaoPi
TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Interestingly as the first few reactions from the parties trickle in greens and CDU seem to be in agreement about the role of the FDP. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18648 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
I'm pretty sure he's talking about this article from 2005. Guys. He's a statistician. Science is literally his field. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3265 Posts
Lindner isn't the patient type, so I can see him leaving negotiations when he doesn't get the feeling that it's leading to something. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
This does not come unexpectedly. The German parliamentary system was never intended for more than 2-3 parties. But as always they won't change the system to a more democratic-representative one. It's probably going to go the opposite way, in case they even notice before it's too late. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18303 Posts
On November 20 2017 21:13 TheDwf wrote: Funny. Germany and Merkel were seen as the very image of political stability by French medias; who could have guessed that the German political system would become unstable so fast. https://twitter.com/MxSba/status/932553935851749376 Still looks politically stable to me. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4557 Posts
Still haven't decided if I prefer a multi-party system or a two-party one. Seems like they both suck. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2017 21:32 Laurens wrote: Just wait until the Belgian elections next year. I think it's likely we'll break our previous record of 541 days without government. Both extreme right and extreme left have increased in popularity, which (probably) means we'll need at least 5 parties to form a government. That's gonna take ages. Still haven't decided if I prefer a multi-party system or a two-party one. Seems like they both suck. It doesn't matter how many parties there are if you don't force yourself into coalition governments and instead leave the country to its representatives, that means the parliament. But I guess a real democracy is not in the interest of the political and economical elites. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On November 20 2017 21:41 Big J wrote: It doesn't matter how many parties there are if you don't force yourself into coalition governments and instead leave the country to its representatives, that means the parliament. But I guess a real democracy is not in the interest of the political and economical elites. Ofc it's not - the priority of every government is to remain control and regulations. What wants people with power? More power... On the other side - total democracy is also a bullshit because social opinion is faceless and cruel :/ and it consists of very different opinions including opinions of uneducated/stupid/violent people - which is a bad mixture. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2017 22:50 Dav1oN wrote: Ofc it's not - the priority of every government is to remain control and regulations. What wants people with power? More power... On the other side - total democracy is also a bullshit because social opinion is faceless and cruel :/ and it consists of very different opinions including opinions of uneducated/stupid/violent people - which is a bad mixture. Based on what criteria do you call them uneducated/stupid/violent? You can only judge based on your own knowledge, so now you are in the dilemma to create a system that is inherently unfair by preferring your opinion (so you are the one who wants more power for yourself, the thing you seem to critizise), or you have to accept that there is no other form for a respectful, free world than the one that gives everyone's voice the same weight on matters that concern them. There is noone that can make your decisions and judge their value for you, except for yourself. | ||
| ||
