152 replies to this topic

[Allathar]

Hm, can you read Dutch, Námo?

[Námo]

Oh yeah, I'm married to a Dutch woman, and I've lived in Nederland (Nijmegen), but that's long ago. I do read Volkskrant, NRC Handelsblad, sometimes NOS (incl. Journaal24 / Politiek24) and even de Groene Amsterdammer (if I need to refresh my aversion against the 'Linkse Kerk' and have a good laugh), also various Dutch blogs.

The 'news' from Geenstijl is a joke, and a good one too, because the real joke is of course, that this is in fact what the European Commission has proposed earlier this year, with their demand for a fire-sale of Greek assets, in return for the second bail-out!

Edited by Námo, 20 August 2011 - 09:55 PM.

[Námo]

European Tea-Party ??

They’ll meet twice a year, have a little coffee and call this an economic government

(Poland’s Finance Minister Jan Vincent-Rostowski
chairman of the EU’s council of economic ministers)

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy’s recent pledge to save the euro, with the help of some cosmetic distractions called economic policies, certainly haven’t won over the markets or their fellow EU leaders, nor Europe’s people:

[T]he popular opinion in Triple A countries seem to showing signs of some serious bailout fatigue - spilling over to fading support for the euro itself (and probably the European project as a whole). On Saturday, a poll commissioned by Dutch paper AD found that 48% of those questioned wanted the Netherlands to leave the euro and would prefer a return to the Dutch guilder.

A separate poll published on Sunday by Maurice de Hond and No Ties BV was more damning, showing that 54% of Dutch voters want Greece and other peripheral countries expelled from the eurozone rather than being rescued again. It also found that 60% want the Netherlands to stop lending money to other eurozone countries while 48% of respondents believe that the euro’s negatives outweigh its benefits. Pretty heavy stuff.

[...]

Over in Germany, the picture looks very similar. A survey recently conducted by the German institute Emnid and published by German paper Bild am Sonntag showed that 31% of Germans believe the euro will disappear by 2021.

Another poll carried out by British pollster YouGov, reveals that 44% of Germans respondents want Germany to leave the eurozone, compared to 48% who want Germany to stay in. And 58% of respondents in Germany and 53% in France said they want Greece to leave the eurozone.

Meanwhile, in Finland, a Helsingin Sanomat poll conducted in July revealed that 44% of Finns questioned said Greece should leave the euro. Although, only 23% said they wanted to return to their previous currency - the Markka.


As ever, the question is when such public sentiments will seriously begin to feed through to national elections - and when politicans will begin being thrown out of office over them.

Open Europe: Eurozone crisis fatigue

[Ash]

The Eurozone: A masterclass in throwing good money after bad.

As is, as was, as ever it shall be.

[Námo]

Pat Condell - Europe needs a revolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3u9LB32YYM

And even if this speech by Nigel Farage is more than a year old, it's as relevant as ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8_Hj5vd2Gs

EU is a total failure. anti Euro, anti EU = pro democracy.

[duke_Qa]

EU is a total failure. anti Euro, anti EU = pro democracy.

Such absolutism can't be good for your blood pressure. Every time you say that the EU is a total failure you are falling face first into the mud, because it is a fact that the EU has been a massive boon for improving upon the lives of Europeans. Its like saying Democracy is a total failure and should be abolished because Hitler won an election in 1933.

I'm sure we will have a sort of revolution soon, but I think its important to figure out what that revolution should be aimed at. Right now I would say we have 3 sort of political powers in the west. The Grassroot, which elects Politicians, which bureaucratize The Rich, who earns money off the Grassroots. somewhat resembles stone-paper-scissors, but with more attacks in different directions. Right now I'd say we are living in an age where the rich are starting to feel the pain of increased law-enforcement encroaching on their turf. Consequently, they are doing their best to get rid of as much pressure as they can, both through hitting the grassroot(outsourcing, heightening house-prices etc) and the pointing the blame at the politicians(lobbying for aide that will indirectly make the politicians look like the crooks because they are helping the crooks) so that the bureaucracy can be reduced once more.


The rich would want nothing more than to earn money on outsourcing all the jobs they can, while putting all the blame on the politicians which actually have power over them. A right-wing/conservative/reactionary economic revolution would give them just what they want: a system where the government over-watch and politicians would deflate, leaving them free to keep on trucking for their own advantage.

A proper progressive economic revolution would be able to see past the rich attempts at spin-doctoring the bureaucracy as the main enemy, and instead of reducing it to a useless lump would reform it, reduce lobbyism, cronyism and corruption. To a point where it can shine as a true supporter of its nation's grassroot citizens and not just the powerful ones. Separation of Money power and State priorities basically.

Edited by duke_Qa, 27 August 2011 - 01:39 PM.

[Námo]

... it is a fact that the EU has been a massive boon for improving upon the lives of Europeans.

Hilarious joke.

So, why are Norway not part of the Euro-zone, or even just a member of the EU?

And why did Norway recently follow Denmark's lead of reinforcing stricter border controls, in conflict with EU's Schengen agreement ... which Norway is a part of?

[duke_Qa]

It has always been a big question for Norwegians to join the EU or not, and in good times it has been hard to keep the no-side viable. We're not in the EU but we still accept 98% of their laws because they improve trading and standardization, so many say that being outside does not matter so we might as well be on the inside. What does border controls have to do with anything really, that was a Libya/Arab spring incursion that happened all over Europe.

But yeah, there would have been certain capitalistic ideologies that would get pushed onto us, and that would have caused quite a bit of our "socialistic" system to collapse. Because there are businesses in Norway that would not be able to make a living without subsidies that the EU would refuse us to hand out if we were members. Lower Maximum toll discounts on auto-pass subscriptions(many toll roads with high prices, to allow people that use the roads often to get off without paying £3000-£8000 per year we have 40-50% discounts and other tricks for the public), Open market on paper mail transport that would cause the postal service to collapse out in the districts(because private postal services would out-compete the public service by selling themselves cheaper in the high-revenue cities/towns, indirectly causing the public postal services to either be 98% subsidized or go bankrupt). fishing rights have also been a big argument, stopping Spanish and other European fishing-ships from fishing the North-sea clean because they have the right to fish in any EU-waters.


Anyway, I have to summarize my no to the EU as this: its more important (right now) for the EU to help the poorer nations of Europe out of their horrible economic situation and tyrannical pasts, than to let them worry about making the life for a pitiful few Norwegians better. We can afford to stay outside, pay the toll to have access to the markets, have no voice in the EU parliament and so forth. And in the worst case scenario that we have to veto some local implementation of one of EU's laws that does not mingle well with our ecosphere, we have a slightly bigger chance at getting out of it without a fight.

As I said earlier, I believe bureaucracies are a part of our future. They are however corrupt and easily bought these days, and they have a tendency if left alone to expand just to increase their own power. Once we move those bureaucracies beyond the power of money and make sure they don't take control over everything like some cancer, I think the world economy and us grassroot people will be much better off.

[Romanul]

Namo, you forget that countries such as Poland, Hungary, former Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics got European funds specially for infrastructure, education, justice, etc.

You can't say that it didn't help some other countries, really.

On a sidenote...

http://www.novinite....s.php?id=131304

Edited by Romanul, 28 August 2011 - 01:56 PM.

[Ash]

It helped those countries, yes. But it doesn't help the UK, France, Germany, etc. who are helping to subsidise them.

OK, France and Germany have basically become bedfellows in a rather byzantine power bloc (which, rather bizarrely, manages to help neither), but that's not the point here. You can't just have an unelected undemocratic set of bureaucratic overlords come in and make sweeping and nigh-always pointless declarations and diktats that seem designed to overregulate the population and entrench them deeper in red tape and yet more bureaucracy and call it progress.

When the European trade accords first came about in the eighties, they made sense. Such agreements would still make sense. But nowhere in the entire scheme was it written anywhere that they'd later be corrupted to form a massive bureaucratic empire which sapped away the sovereignty of every nation that partook in it. I'm sure our collective grandfathers, great-grandfathers and great-great-great-great grandfathers didn't fight in wars against one particularly evil dictatorship or another in the name of freedom and right to self-determination to see those whom we self-determined to lead our nations surrender that power to the very sort of people they fought against.

I'm actually very surprised that the US still maintains any sort of ties with Europe. All one needs is a pair of eyes to see that the Soviets actually won here, albeit in a subtler sort of way than Marx could've ever dreamed of.

[duke_Qa]

As usual, I suspect that its not as much the EU bureaucracy that is draining your nations of power, but your own politicians in lieu with local corporations and whatnot. They just point the blame at the EU while they empty the buffet and become tax-emigrants to some tropical island. If you want to get rid of the EU problems, Start small and get your hands on your local politicians and election systems.

The main problem these days(last 30 years) is that we've been having a expanding ultra-liberalistic free-market economy, but the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a "free market". They are all designed with rules of what you can and cannot do to keep them running. And once the system starts shaking and you have no rules or backup-measures left, things collapse. Try to create a MMO computer game that simulates the free market and see how long it takes before one person has taken control of the world.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

This video is a month old but still good.

Clarke and Dawe do satirical videos here in Australia.

[Phil]

You can't just have an unelected undemocratic set of bureaucratic overlords come in and make sweeping and nigh-always pointless declarations and diktats that seem designed to overregulate the population and entrench them deeper in red tape and yet more bureaucracy and call it progress.

I've heard this lame argument so many times already and it doesn't get better with age. Unelected, undemocratic, bureaucratic overlords? Let's take a look at reality:

The European Parliament is directly elected every 5 years by universal suffrage. It thus enjoys the same legitimacy as any other national parliament in Europe. How much more democratic would you want it? In terms of power, it still lacks supremacy over the Council of the European Union and it has no parliamentary initiative, but with every iteration of the treaties, it has gained in power over the other EU institutions (a lot even in the Lisbon Treaty that everyone seems to decry).

The Council of the European Union, the second part of the EU legislative and the one designed to represent the national interests, is composed of ministers from the respective national governments (depending on the topic). Those governments are democratically elected the way dictated by the national constitutions. If you have a problem with these ministers, it's not the fault of the EU.

The European Commission, the EU's executive body, needs to be confirmed by the European Parliament after its president, has been appointed by the European Council and also confirmed by the European Parliament. This is not yet on the level of how national governments are elected.

The European Council, the strategy-giving body of the EU, is basically just a summit of the 27 member states' head of state or government. Blame the national procedures if you don't agree with how they are elected.

All in all, this is neither unelected nor undemocratic, nor are they overlords. In fact, much of the lack of democratic processes can be blamed on a lack of European integration. Wherever people are appointed and not elected, it's because the member states wanted to retain as much power as possible and not give them away to powerful new EU institutions...

[Ash]

Whether you agree with me or not, you have to see some of the diktats these bureaucrats conjure to believe them.

The European Parliament is directly elected every 5 years by universal suffrage. It thus enjoys the same legitimacy as any other national parliament in Europe. How much more democratic would you want it? In terms of power, it still lacks supremacy over the Council of the European Union and it has no parliamentary initiative, but with every iteration of the treaties, it has gained in power over the other EU institutions (a lot even in the Lisbon Treaty that everyone seems to decry).

You said it right there - it's less powerful than its unelected colleagues in the upper house. It doesn't enjoy any legitimacy beyond that which it was bestowed by the leaders of sovereign nations whose peoples were given no choice as to whether that sovereignty should be relinquished. That said I don't think it should gain power; I don't think it, or any other EU bodies, should have any power. They shouldn't even exist!

The Council of the European Union, the second part of the EU legislative and the one designed to represent the national interests, is composed of ministers from the respective national governments (depending on the topic). Those governments are democratically elected the way dictated by the national constitutions. If you have a problem with these ministers, it's not the fault of the EU.

No, it is. When a government is free to appoint whoever it likes to an unaccountable legislative body outside of that government the whole thing starts to smack of cronyism. It'd be like America deciding who runs the UK.

The European Commission, the EU's executive body, needs to be confirmed by the European Parliament after its president, has been appointed by the European Council and also confirmed by the European Parliament. This is not yet on the level of how national governments are elected.

Yet more cronyism. Elected and non-elected officials appointing yet antoher group of non-elected officials. Spare me. Better yet, spare all of us their cretinous empire-building.

The European Council, the strategy-giving body of the EU, is basically just a summit of the 27 member states' head of state or government. Blame the national procedures if you don't agree with how they are elected.

This is about the only aspect of the EU policymaking process I agree with. In fact, this should be all there is. And it should be limited to trade agreements and mutual defence policy only.

All in all, this is neither unelected nor undemocratic, nor are they overlords.

When only 1/3 of your "government" (I use the term generously) is elected by any form of democratic process, you don't have an elected or democratic government. All that happens is you get these legislaturalists who curry the favour of the ministerial heads to secure votes from them. This leads not to a more efficient form of governance but a less efficient form - either these legislaturalists will build massive power blocs against oneanother's policies or they'll vote down perfectly good ideas against one another in a desperate bid to keep the favour of their patrons in individual national governments.

In fact, much of the lack of democratic processes can be blamed on a lack of European integration. Wherever people are appointed and not elected, it's because the member states wanted to retain as much power as possible and not give them away to powerful new EU institutions...

And can you blame them for a millisecond? I don't see your government rushing to sign the Lisbon Treaty, because your government has an ounce of sense and it's only in hindsight that our national policymakers begin to realise what a monster they've created. I would'nt want to give anything away to the powerful new EU institutions either - in fact I'd sooner dissolve those powerful (not to mention ineffectual, bureaucratic, byzantine and unnecessary) EU institutions.

[duke_Qa]

- in fact I'd sooner dissolve those powerful (not to mention ineffectual, bureaucratic, byzantine and unnecessary) EU institutions.

Still think this is a UK problem, not a EU problem. For me the EU is perfect when its running around putting down the red tape on corrupt and cronyistic governments that split a country up for rich families to control. Its the perfect use of bureaucracies in my opinion. I heavily doubt the EU really have had that much to say about the governance of the UK, which I guess might be a bad thing. But I guess a reform of the governing system in the UK is something that should come from the inside.

Edited by duke_Qa, 30 August 2011 - 11:34 AM.

[Ash]

Wait.

So you're saying that the EU is good because it over-bureaucratises and cronyises governments which themselves are already bureaucratic and cronyistic? Surely the objective is in most cases to reduce bureaucracy?

I'm not saying for a minute that the British government is perfect - I despise that it itself is 50% unelected and that it is in equal parts decadent, corrupt, cronyistic and anachronistic but the EU debt machine isn't the answer.

[duke_Qa]

Is it a crime to be ambiguous?

There are shades of cronyism and corruption in the world. Nepotism might be the minor sort of it, but it is common as dirt even today.

I liked the infographic in that article about the scales of corruption. I dunno why Sweden and Finland somehow is better than us Norwegians though, harrumph.


Those yellow and red bastards in eastern Europe, France, Spain, Italy Greece balkans etc. are the ones the EU should be(and probably are) spending their time on. Baby + bathwater and all that; if you were to disband the EU just because You, a pretty "high standard" political system with little corruption, feel it is being incompetent and lazy and corrupt because its just eating out of your pocket: That would not be very fair for those that are developing in a positive direction from their help.

Yeah, I can agree that a EU debt machine looks like a bad alternative. But I'm pretty sure some of these economists have to start making sense of this, and it seems that the eyes of politicians and the people of these nations are slowly opening and realizing they've been living over means. The alternative is economic depression, and not just for the idiots. If you think its bad with a bit of debt, I'd like to see how you react once economies start to actually shrink instead of just cooling down. It would be Armageddon compared to our whimpering complaints right now.

Edited by duke_Qa, 30 August 2011 - 08:09 PM.

[Pasidon]

Gives me a chuckle that they can't even put a level of 'corruption' on Antarctica. After 5 years of experience there... I'd put a big pink splotch, at least. But I don't quite understand how you can accurately measure 'corruption' and make it a statistic map. I'll stick with my hunch and say you can't.

[duke_Qa]

Probably irrelevant to paint it considering the small amount of humans around up there.

I bet they have found very accurate ways to analyze corruption in a country, but those few points I took in statistics & analysis was traumatic and have been suppressed, so I can't say I'm motivated to find out.

Edited by duke_Qa, 30 August 2011 - 09:23 PM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

It's also a little weird that the US would be in the blue there. :S
How would you measure corruption anyway, since a good deal would be somewhat hidden in the more developed countries.
Which may explain why the US is blue.