lol Italy ¯_(ツ)_/¯
European Politics Thread
-
lol Italy ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
That moment when your political career only lasts 4 days.
The Democratic Party should have accepted the alliance. The 5stars aren't far-righties after all
-
That moment when your political career only lasts 4 days.
The Democratic Party should have accepted the alliance. The 5stars aren't far-righties after all
The Democratic Party should have a pretty stable government. Had Renzi not been an absolute moron more than once, throwing his country into chaos and then completely failing to come back and now dragging his party away from power and increasing the chaos because he doesn't want to associate with a "eurosceptic party". Seriously, f that guy and the current Democratic upper branch which decided this.
-
On one hand Salvini is an asshole for refusing a ship full of migrants on his way to Italy. But on the other hand, they're right that Italy shouldn't carry this burden on their own.
After all, it's mostly dipshit Sarkozy who's responsable for the military intervention in Libya. France should welcome most of the migrants from north-africa (even though, it seems like the people on that ship were eastern-africans, it doesn't change that we're in this situation because of Sarkozy.) But douchey liberal Macron doesn't want to welcome any ship on the French harbors…
Thankfully Mariano Rajoy got kicked out a few weeks ago, leaving the government at the hands of the social-democrats. Otherwise, 600people would be starving at sea right now -
After all, it's mostly dipshit Sarkozy who's responsable for the military intervention in Libya. …
Don't say that, some people do believe that Sarkozy did it really to install democracy in Lybia.
-
Don't say that, some people do believe that Sarkozy did it really to install democracy in Lybia.
I'm still a bit amazed that this guy isn't the most un-popular president of the 5th Republic. People are way too much influenced by charisma
-
There are plenty of presidents and world leaders in the past who have gotten by with their charisma and their "good-ole-boy" image.
-
I'm still a bit amazed that this guy isn't the most un-popular president of the 5th Republic. People are way too much influenced by charisma
I think it is partly Bruni who gave him his aura.
-
It looks like the western medias are kind of optimistic about the elections in Turkey. They're implying that the Turkish economy is doing bad and it has repercussions on Erdogan's popularity.
Inflation is running at 12%. The turkish currency has dropped from about 40% since the coup. It looks like Erdogan is loosing the "trust" of foreign investors.On the other hand, Turkish opposition newspapers doubt that Erdogan will just go away even if he happens to loose the election. And so do I tbh, he wouldn't just fuck off after changing the constitution. But some say that thinking that an authoritarian leader is impossible to dethrone is part of what the tyran wants us to believe, which happens to make him un-dethronable. Because after all, Erdogan doesn't have all the powers yet. So, I shouldn't think like that and should put some hopes in the opposition.
Also, the last polls I checked were still showing Erdogan as the favorite. -
It's gonna take a little while but the French government will change the first article of the Constitution in order to add the words "environment, climat and biodiversity". It should be done by mid-2019 at most
-
Speaking of French Presidents, Macron's approval rating seems to go the way Hollande's did before him:
-
Not really. He's still way more popular than Hollande (26%) and Sarkozy (36%) were at the same time after their election (12-13 months)
-
Yeah, Hollande's negative approval ratings were surely something special.
-
At least Macron is staying true to his agenda. People knew what they were voting for. Hollande ran a social-democratic platform of "enough austerity, let's change how EU does things" and he got absolutely nothing done beyond being Germany's pawn. Disgraceful. No wonder the PS collapsed after his mandate. But I don't like the French electoral system in general, I'd much rather have Portugal, Spain, UK, or Germany's version of parliamentary rule with the president/king/queen as a figurehead. The French and American systems seem pretty flawed to me, in terms of realizing democracy and corresponding to voter's wishes and expectations. They lead mostly to a bipartisan final standoff, which brings stability but severely hampers voters' choices and renders parliament/congress essentially useless.
-
At least Macron is staying true to his agenda. People knew what they were voting for. Hollande ran a social-democratic platform of "enough austerity, let's change how EU does things" and he got absolutely nothing done beyond being Germany's pawn.
This will maybe make me an instant pariah in this thread, but I object (at least to some degree) to this description.
Obviously your statements are all about the Euro crisis. The "Germanys pawn"-narrative has some problems, though. Maybe for some background one should remember that basically France seems to have extracted their support for German reunification for Germany giving up the Deutschmark and joining the currency union.
https://voxeurop.eu/en/content/article/351531-you-get-unification-we-get-euro
The introduction of the euro was thus a rather French idea which Germany basically swallowed to retain good relations (no minimizing the benefits of that).
Now, an important point that has often been made in Germany was the fact that the Treaty of Masstricht (which established the Eurozone) contained Article 125, which forbids one state of the Eurozone to "assume liability for the debts of other members of the Eurozone". Before the introduction of the Euro, German politicians made big promises that this would prevent Germany from having to financially assist other states in the Eurozone.
Now fast forward to the Euro Crisis. There have been three so-called "Bailout programmes" to help recapitalize Greek banks (without that there would have been complete economic collapse). This raised eyebrows in Germany, since there were voices that this violated the spirit of the aforementioned article 125.
So there are strong hints that France pressured Germany into adopting the Euro and Germany helped with the so-called "Bailout programs" despite their negative connotation with regards to what initially seemed to have been agreed by other Member states in the Maastricht Treaty… Doesn't seem that when it comes to the Euro crisis, everyone else is Germany's pawn, does it?
On the other hand...
Germany's export-oriented economy profits from the Euro and I freely admit that the austerity measures were forced upon other member states by Germany and caused needless suffering in places like Greece. Not a good visual for my country.In the end, there's this looming question that the whole thing with the common currency has been such a good idea. Before the Euro, when countries had their own currencies, they could change their exchange rate and for example devalue their currency to make them more competetive. Greece and Italy played that game all the time. Now all those countries are tied together in the Eurozone, have only one common exchange rate and no longer that option. Though dissolving the Eurozone is likely not a realistic option either. nevertheless, even if the hard austerity measures are lifted, there's the question if it wouldn't make more sense for some countries to leave the Eurozone and return to their own currency.
Questing the introduction of the Euro places me far outside the mainstream here in Germany. Indeed, I have to be careful not to come close enough to the right-wing fringe. But I think that there are some reasonable arguments for questioning the supposed "wisdom" of this decision.
PS: I admit, I'm a little obsessive about this issue, since I pay rather much attention to it as an Economics student.
-
^It's always good to hear different points of view, especially when you're even a "pariah" among the prevailing point of view in your country! But I didn't mean that the Euro is Germany's ingenious plan to take over the EU to suit their own goals, it wasn't in that sense that I criticized Hollande. But what happened during the Eurozone crisis was indeed a restricted group of better off countries, like Germany and the Benelux, imposing heavy austerity measures on countries that were suffering hard already. And the truth is that Hollande promised to end that and he completely failed and wrote a blank check for those countries to do as they wanted. Meanwhile, here comes Macron with some grandiose plans to reform the Eurozone into a more comprehensive structure that benefits the entire community of countries and Merkel is actually willing to discuss his proposals now. Despite not liking Macron in terms of domestic policy (and that has nothing to do with me anyway since I'm not French nor do I live in France) and thinking he is an arrogant prick, I like the ideas for the Euro and the EU very much and I am glad that the Eurozone countries are finally looking to change something to prevent such a crisis from happening again in the future.
-
Despite not liking Macron in terms of domestic policy (and that has nothing to do with me anyway since I'm not French nor do I live in France) and thinking he is an arrogant prick, I like the ideas for the Euro and the EU very much and I am glad that the Eurozone countries are finally looking to change something to prevent such a crisis from happening again in the future.
The point with Macron's proposed reforms is of course: "Who pays for this?"
That makes some Germans a little bit nervous, since for instance the lion's share of his proposed "Eurozone budget" would come from Germany.
Basically, there seem to be 3 options:
1. Austerity forced upon Southern Europe: Causes small humanitarian crisis, makes Germany the boogeyman, questionable if that's feasible for years to come. Austerity was probably a factor why Italians and Greeks voted for parties that are commnoly referred to as "populist".
2. More redistribution in the Eurozone: Basically what Macron wants and may be necessary to a certain degree. But will not be very popular among governments and voters in Northern Europe.
3. Certain countries leave the Eurozone, if they can't reform or even redistributing money doesn't help. Your own country maybe a candidate. Returning back to a devalued escudo could make the Portugese economy more competetive.
-
@Big:
2. More redistribution in the Eurozone: Basically what Macron wants and may be necessary to a certain degree. But will not be very popular among governments and voters in Northern Europe.
I think this point is what's most important in making the euro-currency work.
Having the same coin is very useful when traveling in europe but for such thing to actually work in the long term Europe needs to work more like a single entity in some regards.
Of course, as you say, this change would/will ruffle some feathers among the richest countries which feel like they're the only ones providing for the little ones. The rise of nationalistic feelings which seem to be in the air a little everywhere are facilitating this process. -
@Big:
The point with Macron's proposed reforms is of course: "Who pays for this?"
That makes some Germans a little bit nervous, since for instance the lion's share of his proposed "Eurozone budget" would come from Germany.
Basically, there seem to be 3 options:
1. Austerity forced upon Southern Europe: Causes small humanitarian crisis, makes Germany the boogeyman, questionable if that's feasible for years to come. Austerity was probably a factor why Italians and Greeks voted for parties that are commnoly referred to as "populist".
2. More redistribution in the Eurozone: Basically what Macron wants and may be necessary to a certain degree. But will not be very popular among governments and voters in Northern Europe.
3. Certain countries leave the Eurozone, if they can't reform or even redistributing money doesn't help. Your own country maybe a candidate. Returning back to a devalued escudo could make the Portugese economy more competetive.
Option 3 seems fine, as long as Germany leaves the euro. The German economy wouldn't suffer that much, and the rest of the Eurozone countries, which are much more homogenous between them, would still have a single currency stronger than if they each had their own national currencies. And the inflation could rise a bit to make their economies more competitive. Germany is what's holding the single currency back, but everyone knew it from the start. The whole construction of the Euro is deeply flawed, I have no idea how it was agreed to like this in the first place. Portugal leaving the Euro would be an absolute nightmare and suggesting that is ridiculous. Greece had a far-left government which was "minutes away" from leaving the Euro but they never did, because the country would become a third world country overnight, with a worthless currency, which would plunge almost everyone living there who had their savings in the banks into poverty. There is a historical reason for Germany to want a strong currency and be so against inflation, which you probably know (Weimar republic and all). So I understand that Germans have their own point of view. But if the Eurozone is to work, it has to behave like a cohesive group, like a single country. Does Germany not pay for their poorest regions, who perform worse economically? Then that's what should happen on a european level. If there had been a safeguard in place to prevent the poorest countries from plunging into massive debt, the whole gigantic crisis would not have happened in the first place. Did you see Americans panicking because a single state or county went bankrupt at any time? Then why should the EU panic because one of its smaller economies, representing like 1% of the GDP, went bankrupt? It's absurd. And it is feeding populists continuously and understandibly.
-
The Netherlands and Denmark finally passed a law to ban the niqab/burka from public spaces.
It's a bit surprising. I wasn't expecting this from these two countries -
Donald Trump today asked the President of the Portuguese Republic if Cristiano Ronaldo would ever run against him in an election; he answered that Portugal wasn't like the USA, lol At least he didn't invite that douche to visit Portugal. One less reason for me to go to Lisbon in protest, it would be a waste of money, but I'd do it if it was him.
-
The Netherlands and Denmark finally passed a law to ban the niqab/burka from public spaces.
It's a bit surprising. I wasn't expecting this from these two countriesThe Netherlands has been culture warring Muslims before it was cool and Denmark is basically European Australia.
-
Denmark is Scandinavian Alabama.
-
I'm suprised it wasn't already banned. The Danes have been aiming toward becoming the land least attractive to Arabs for quite a while now. But then again now everybody is playing hot potato with the immigrant issue so i guess they feel the need to amp up their crackdowns
-
That's not what I meant.
I meant that it surprises me how these two countries that have a tradition of being liberal would ban the burqa.The burqa was banned not long ago in Turkey's universities. But it doesn't mean that they hated muslims. I mean, it was a mistake to ban it in Turkey. But it still doesn't change that they did it and they're not conservatives/right-wing/authoritarian for having done so. Quite the opposite actually
Millions of muslims are and will migrate in Europe from the Middle-East (and eventually elsewhere) in the years and decades to come. These muslims in general are not the most progressist and feminist people you'll meet, and that's fine, but they'll also bring a shitty version of Islam that hates women. The idea is to prevent this ideology to root in Europe, by banning (for instance) the burqa before it becomes a huge thing. Before it becomes hard to ban.
One really has to be blinded by political correctness to think that millions of muslims coming from the Middle-East in Germany, France, Italy, England and Spain will only bring music, spicy food and new words in the language.I don't think we should approve something dangerous only because it's hiding behind "freedom of religion". We all agree that laws shouldn't forbid something if it's not dangerous, okay fine. But the disagreement comes from what is and isn't dangerous. The burqa goes along very bigoted and authoritarian ideas. It's banned like nazi salutes are forbidden. I'm not saying they're inter-changeable, but if I had to make a comparison with something that isn't harmful in itself, I'd do it with the nazi salute.
There is also the argument that one should have a civic attitude and show their face in publicI'm gonna bring up the French case again. But it's not just Sarkozy and Lepen who think that the burqa should be/remain banned from public spaces. Emmanuel Macron, Benoit Hamon and Mélenchon agree on that too. This is not islamophobic !
P.S. It's the burqa that is banned, not the hijab. I'm saying that because people can get confused
-
The liberties i associate with the Danes are mostly about drinking, smoking and fornicating.
-
@Azrvfsuits:
Reported for being a scam
Also, today is the day the EU removing freedom of the internet. I hope many of you Europans move to other none EU nations like America or Japan.
-
The liberties i associate with the Danes are mostly about drinking, smoking and fornicating.
That doesn't sound so bad.
-
Also, today is the day the EU removing freedom of the internet. I hope many of you Europans move to other none EU nations like America or Japan.
If I happen to lack freedom, amerika is the last place I'd move to.
Anyway, just stop reporting fake news please. I've seen this claim on a whole bunch of anglo-american discussions on internet. And I get it, you're mad as fuck because of Trump and the Brexit. Fine. Just get over it and stop comparing yourselves with your neighbors. You're gonna be okay
-
Lol I actually talked to some EU lawyers about it, who specialise in this subject, and no, the internet is not gonna lose its freedom, The ECJ have already made numerous decisions essentially constitutionalising freedoms (like memes), this article 13 changes nothing in legal practice, everyone's gonna be fine.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Well, I'm half European as my mother was born in Spain. I try to get my news from sites that update about the whole order. I just wasn't at the right sites that are current at the moment. Maybe you are right Nilitch. I must be going crazy lately. I need some sleep for tomorrow's another day.
-
Lol I actually talked to some EU lawyers about it, who specialise in this subject, and no, the internet is not gonna lose its freedom, The ECJ have already made numerous decisions essentially constitutionalising freedoms (like memes), this article 13 changes nothing in legal practice, everyone's gonna be fine.
I feel like Americans scream about the EU censoring the internet at least once every year.
-
Americans scream about the need of r3Al libertad in Europe every day
-
Well folks, all the discussion is for naught, since the proposed project to "censor the internet" was NOT approved by the EU parliament. Keep calm and carry on.
-
David Davis, British minister responsible for Brexit, resigned last night. Couple of days after Prime minister May announced to sack everyone, who contradicts her and her leaders opinion in how exactly the Brexit should be.
I cannot despise a signature more than this: much space for how many letters?
-
In the end, the negotiations will last a decade and the next generation of Britons will vote to remain in the EU. A few weeks ago, the British parliament double-crossed Theresa May and made it clear that no agreement will be signed without their approval
-
Boris Johnson quits as foreign secretary.
-
Fine-tuned machine!
-
Yeah, it seems increasingly likely that this split between "soft" and "hard" Brexit will only lead to more insecurity and eventually to a new referendum that favours staying/reentering the EU. If the EU is still a thing that looks like it can still hold together in 10 years. Because it's looking pretty bad at the moment. I am pro-EU (hell, I'm a federalist) but the current EU just disgusts me more than it pleases me, it's sad.
-
We've been wondering for a while now if the UK is really gonna leave the EU or not. Polls aren't very much different from when they voted, but the Brits are increasingly asking for a second referendum to accept or refuse the deal they'll get. And it's probably gonna be a shitty one anyway, since they have 27countries against them. The EU is very united on that point
On the other hand, if they really take a while to negotiate (which they will imo) and in the very end choose to "remain" in the EU. I doubt that they'll be welcomed back just like that. They'll probably be asked to actually fully join the Union. The current refugee/migrant problem will be a huge issue for them then. Especially when they're the second country (after the US) responsable for this migration to happen in the first place
Speaking about the refugees. The "Visegrad group" is still being super zealous against refugees/migrants even though there are way way wayyy less refugees than there was a few years ago. Like, it's preposterous to speak about a "crisis" at this point. And honestly, it's not like people were coming in Europe to live in Poland, Czechia, Hungary or Slovakia in the first place. They're mostly coming for the UK and Germany. Eastern Europe only happens to be on their way
-
On the other hand, if they really take a while to negotiate (which they will imo) and in the very end choose to "remain" in the EU. I doubt that they'll be welcomed back just like that. They'll probably be asked to actually fully join the Union. The current refugee/migrant problem will be a huge issue for them then. Especially when they're the second country (after the US) responsable for this migration to happen in the first place
How is the UK remotely responsible for Syria, even the US is barely involved all things considered.
Meanwhile while the US took a major role in Libya, it wasn't so much the Brits that also helped there as some certain other country whose president was really gung ho about it… trying to recall.
Syria being an unsustainable ethnic tension nightmare was something inherent in it's creation as well.
Just as I blame the British partly for Sri Lanka's mess, Cyprus's mess, and Israel/Palestine's mess. Once more I think there is some other country who is partly to blame regarding Syria being a mess. -
wow, I had written a whole paragraph but I closed the window like an idiot. I hate myself now
Anyway, to be quick. The UK is responsable for having been America's little bitch by making up false evidences about Saddam's uranium.
Both their government, parliament and public opinion agreed on going on war against Iraq.
Everything that's been happening since 2003 is the direct consequence of this war.
Ethnic, religious (and tribal) conflicts doesn't explain much since Lybia has that too and it doesn't look as much of a shithole as Syria-Irak.
This is why my point is that the US and the UK should welcome most of the refugees/migrants (if not all)As for Lybia, most of the refugees and migrants actually come from the Sahel and Eastern-Africa. And Sarkozy decided to kill Gadhaffi on his own.
Anyway, I'd still agree to welcome a few millions of people though -
Everything that's been happening since 2003 is the direct consequence of this war.
This is wildly incorrect as regards Syria and Libya, especially Libya.
Ethnic, religious (and tribal) conflicts doesn't explain much
Ok neat so you have no idea really about anything regarding the Syrian war apparently?
since Lybia has that too
Libya is extremely homogenous by comparison lol.
It is overwhelmingly Sunni Arab, with the only really remarkable minority being some Sunni Berbers. There are some clan/tribal fractures, but those are still between Sunni Arabs.Meanwhile Syria is…. I dunno can you like read even the most basic thing about Syrian religious/ethnic diversity before starting to talk about Syria? Thanks. Don't want to do your work for you here.
This is why my point is that the US and the UK should welcome most of the refugees/migrants (if not all)
Did you figure out who the mystery country is in my post yet? Because they're as responsible for Libya as Britain is for Iraq. And they sure got involved something fierce in the creation of Syria.
-
Another day of "my american opinion is the TRUTH" with Monkey King as guest. Or the "let's clear the US name from the Middle-East" starter pack
I don't even have to talk with you to know what you think -
Another day of "my american opinion is the TRUTH" with Monkey King as guest. Or the "let's clear the US name from the Middle-East" starter pack
I don't even have to talk with you to know what you thinkSo for people reading this wondering what was going on:
A French guy threw 100% blame for Syria and Libya on the US and UK.
1. The Libyan intervention involved both those countries to some degree, but involved a great deal of French involvement, namely a very gung-ho French president leading the call to arms, one Mr. Sarkozy. It is of course true that the total lack of follow up to the Libyan war was a very very bad thing for the NATO countries, and has allowed for circumstances of refugees coming to Europe. However this blame level is shared by the US and France, and others involved in the military moves.
2. Meanwhile the Syrian war (which Nilitch does not have even the slightest understanding of) was not caused by the Iraq War in any way shape or form. It was a domestic protest movement that spiraled into a civil war (same with Libya). The US has since gotten involved to some degree, though not really in any refugee creating way since it has mostly been propping up the most stable part of the country (Kurdistan). Russia, Iran, ISIS, and the Syrian government itself are squarely to blame for the massive amount of refugees in the case of Syria.
Meanwhile the UK has basically not been involved even slightly in the Syrian conflict, so giving them blame for absolutely no reason is not only random but kind of insane on Nilitch's part.
Meanwhile meanwhile! Syria as a former colonial state is a horrible stupid mess of a country that never made sense, involving perpetually tense relations between the majority Arab Sunnis, and the various sizable minorities like the Christian population, Kurds, Druz, and most of all the Alawite Muslims. During colonial rule the minorities rose to prominent positions in the military and other such places. Part of a standard pattern of colonial rule where the European ruler empowered the minority over the majority to divide and conquer. Leading inexorably to humanitarian disasters when the country became independent and ethnic conflict breaks out.
The British did this sin namely in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and in Ireland. The Belgians infamously did this in Rwanda, yes that Rwanda, and yes that genocide.WELL in Syria? The current conflict is largely between the Sunni Arab majority vs a core minority clique of Alawites, Christians, and other Shiite Muslim groups. The Assad government is dominated by Alawites, the Assad family itself is Alawite. Their main regional allies are Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah, fellow Shiite Muslims. The main regional backers of many of the rebel forces are Sunni Muslims, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey. This is a big ethno-religious conflict of miserable proportions. Because someone birthed an indendent country that made no sense, and someone favored minorities gaining the political and military dominance, creating major tension in the country since birth.
Which brings us good reader to who exactly WAS that former colonial ruler of Syria who seeded this situation… who oh who could that be?
!
-
I didn't throw any blame for Lybia
-
Yo non-Irish/Swiss/Nordic Western Europe. On the subject of arrogance:
You don't really have the moral authority in the world you think you do.
Yes America is a dumpster fire of warmongering rednecks and retarded violence. And by contrast you might get the idea that you are so so much above them and can strut out on the subject.
But you were uh… raping most of the world in living memory, and the world didn't get un-raped just because you've been sitting pretty since the 60's.
Asia and Africa are not your best buds sitting in the gallery watching the Yankee idiot. You are with the Yankee idiot. Asia and Africa hate you too lol.Few important notices:
-As mentioned, the Irish, Finns, Vikings and Swiss are exempt of this, and can sit in the audience with the Asians and Africans and throw peanut shells at America and France.
-Japan, China and Turkey are to be turned away from the audience by the ushers, and directed down into the arena with the other assholes. Yes yes China I know you used to be allowed in the audience, but let's be real here.
-Portugal, Belgium and Netherlands might try to sneak out when no one is looking because of them being tiny and seemingly innocuous. Likely hiding behind Sweden or Norway. But apprehend these criminals at all costs and shove them into the arena! Especially watch out for Belgium, that one is a hardened sociopath in the worst sense!!
-
Yeah yeah, you are all horrible monsters, and I want in to try and survive and maybe wreck vengance some day.
-
Yeah yeah, you are all horrible monsters, and I want in to try and survive and maybe wreck vengance some day.
Oops wait, sorry. The audience of Africa, Asia and Latin America.