European Politics
-
The local paper in Chemnitz is reporting that the dead guy is a Cuban German who moved from Saxony to Bavaria a while ago and was back for a visit. He was with a group of guys including two other German men of Russian descent who were injured (not clear if stabbed) in an argument over cigarettes and/or an EFTPOS card.
One of the other injured men is quoted as saying the very people who are so outraged over this man’s death are the same ones who used to beat them up in the past for not being German enough.
The locals involved are identified as a bunch of football hooligans, about a hundred of them, all known to the police. They have been bolstered by protesters from a wide area.
-
Ha interesting that they are big on reporting ethnicities now. Assuming this is accurate then this could very well be a "Hands up don't shoot" or a Mark Duggan moment, facts don't matter when there is an underlying problem not being addressed that is looking for a spark to he ignited.
The government and media labeling 10,000 people as far right will only increase numbers to extremist groups on both the far right and far left. History maybe repeating.
-
@rembrandt said in European Politics:
Ha interesting that they are big on reporting ethnicities now. Assuming this is accurate then this could very well be a "Hands up don't shoot" or a Mark Duggan moment, facts don't matter when there is an underlying problem not being addressed that is looking for a spark to he ignited.
The government and media labeling 10,000 people as far right will only increase numbers to extremist groups on both the far right and far left. History maybe repeating.
The AfD got almost 6 million votes. God knows how many didn't vote or held their nose and voted for one of the majors. Banning people from expressing opinions online will not make this problem go away and will of course make it worse. Germans are known for finding solutions (no pun intended) but this isn't an engineering project or a military campaign. Ingenuity and hard work will not get them out of this mess.
-
Seems like a pretty good time to leave the EU ...
All jokes aside, the first softening of stance has appeared from the EU.
Everything in the office is talking about No-Deal, although I don't really think anybody thinks that will happen. Depends on how hardball Theresa is prepared to be.
-
So the EU has been busy the last couple days as it serves to reinforce an idea that its goal is to become a corrupt authoritarian superstate.
Firstly articles 13 & 11 of the Copyright Directive have been passed which are arguably internet censorship laws dressed up as 'copyright' law. Basically this makes it compulsory for all uploaded information on the internet to first be scanned for copyright infringement before it can be uploaded.
Sounds fair..except when you consider the vast amount of info that goes on to the internet each second..and then you consider the only way this could even be remotely achieved is through algorithm..and then you consider the sources of these algorithms and just how bad they are and how much they have been used to date to stop particular 'wrong think'. The argument is if it weren't for the internet and actual freedom of information Brexit would not have happened and that is precisely why the EU wants to roll out mass censorship over the entire European Union.
Their 2nd action is to initiate Article 7 on the Treaty of European Union against Hungary. Hungary were under the impression that they were a sovereign nation and believed they had the right not to allow mass refugee and economic migration in order to protect their culture and their citizens.
No doubt their lack of terrorist attacks is simply just a coincidence and not a direct result of this policy.
Anyway as they are discovering the folk really in charge of Hungary are not its citizens or its government but actually a bunch of un-elected, overpaid bureaucrats in Belgium. Triggering article 7 allows sanctions against Hungary including removing it's voting rights (I guess that is the ultimate goal anyway).
Farage made an excellent comment on it in the EU parliament a couple days back. Hungary and other eastern European countries should be all too aware of the absolute danger of the EU.
-
So my good buddy Carl (well we had dinner ...) went to European Parliament in Strasburg for the Article 13 debate. He managed to interview some UKIP MEPs about the goings on in the EU and its is mindblowing.
Highly recommend watching if you are in or affiliated to a European country.
-
Well, in my view, Mr Tusk has just made a right royal cock up.
I cant see social networks at work, but he's put in instagram, a picture of him offering cake to May, saying something like "fancy some cake, but you cannot have the cherry".
People in my office, are fuming, about the British being mocked and treated like this. And the fuming, for once, is not at May. It's at Tusk. He's basically demonstrated one of the main reasons as to why lots of UK nationals don't want to be a part of it.
Now of course, I'm sure this is a small part of some larger negotiating tactic ... but I've never seen my office so vocal. It will put all our jobs at serious risk, but the consensus here is "fine, no deal - fuck off".
Interesting few weeks ahead ..
-
AfD now second largest party in German polls. Merkel's party at lowest ever recorded. A mainstream party opposed to her madness would farking sweep it. Not that you'd find any of that sentiment on social media....
-
@rembrandt said in European Politics:
Get fucked Macron
This predates Trump but it’s interesting that Obama called freeloaders freeriders when he was president
https://www.cer.eu/insights/eu-army-four-reasons-it-will-not-happen
-
Yeah this isn't funny
Worth noting that the German army can't act outside of its borders under its own flag*(edit this may have changed trying to verify)..something to do with some significant historical event or something....BUT if they do it under a different flag then well that's totally fine.
Own flag, own anthem, own parliament, own borders, own army. New age imperialism.
-
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
-
@gt12 said in European Politics:
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
So it is Trumps fault that a German led military coalition wants to dominate the world... Did he also cause the Vietnam war?
ffs...
But i would be fascinated to be told how the US was "benevolent" under Bush and Obama?
Was it the drone strikes?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in European Politics:
@gt12 said in European Politics:
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
So it is Trumps fault that a German led military coalition wants to dominate the world... Did he also cause the Vietnam war?
ffs...
But i would be fascinated to be told how the US was "benevolent" under Bush and Obama?
Was it the drone strikes?
I believe that Trump's policies and America first doctrine make a European army more likely, regardless of whether that is good or bad for the world.
Regarding Vietnam, no, clearly not his fault, but it represented the USA moving away from the very successful long-term Kennan containment strategy, by refusing to leave once it was clear that the French couldn't hold Indochina and that they couldn't build a movement against communism, but would rather become seen as invaders left in a conflict that wouldn't alter the balance of power. In other words, they sought a short-term victory without a long-term view of how their position in the world would be affected vis-a-vis their primary strategic competitors. That does sound like the current US policy a bit, and for that reason I've indulged your childish reference.
Benevolence under Bush and Obama was them making a show of getting European support, whether that support was really needed, or even wanted to be given. Then, in the background they were as ruthless as ever. For our lifetimes, the view of the West has been one of an integrated group of countries led by the USA.
However, Trump appears to seen little use in that, and accordingly, I think it's rational for countries to assume that he may be reelected and such America first policies continued - even after he is gone, leading European countries to consider whether the extra money they will be demanded to spend may be better if they can exercise (group) sovereignty over the armed forces it supports.
American currently guarantees Europes safety, but equally, American gets to extend its reach all across the globe. That costs, and if countries feel that the longer-term odds are in their favor elsewhere due to a short-term policy of me-first by the global hegemon, I don't see why we would be surprised about it - regardless of whether it is a good thing or bad.
-
@gt12 said in European Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in European Politics:
@gt12 said in European Politics:
Well, they are being driven to it by Trump. If the country with global hegemony isn’t prepared to pay to keep it that way, I think they should expect it to be challenged. Europe and Asia have played ball because it is in their interest to do so, and that has unfairly cost Americans.
Is it still in any country’s interest to give a shit about the USA nuclear umbrella and defense that kept them safe for so long? I imagine many countries leaders are asking themselves that question nowadays. The US is a mature market, and while valuable, others are available and can be navigating with less risk.
Edit: what I’m trying to say here is that if you want to be the benevolent world leader, you have to act (if not be) benevolent. I don’t see that from the Stares right now - here in Japan we are seeing media articles (and government action) about a rapprochement with China, and Russia, and ASEAN.
Trump has been very successful by using the power of the US and he may continue to be so, but equally many people may now be questioning the underlying ties that they thought tied them to supporting US positions.
So it is Trumps fault that a German led military coalition wants to dominate the world... Did he also cause the Vietnam war?
ffs...
But i would be fascinated to be told how the US was "benevolent" under Bush and Obama?
Was it the drone strikes?
I believe that Trump's policies and America first doctrine make a European army more likely, regardless of whether that is good or bad for the world.
Regarding Vietnam, no, clearly not his fault, but it represented the USA moving away from the very successful long-term Kennan containment strategy, by refusing to leave once it was clear that the French couldn't hold Indochina and that they couldn't build a movement against communism, but would rather become seen as invaders left in a conflict that wouldn't alter the balance of power. In other words, they sought a short-term victory without a long-term view of how their position in the world would be affected vis-a-vis their primary strategic competitors. That does sound like the current US policy a bit, and for that reason I've indulged your childish reference.
Benevolence under Bush and Obama was them making a show of getting European support, whether that support was really needed, or even wanted to be given. Then, in the background they were as ruthless as ever. For our lifetimes, the view of the West has been one of an integrated group of countries led by the USA.
However, Trump appears to seen little use in that, and accordingly, I think it's rational for countries to assume that he may be reelected and such America first policies continued - even after he is gone, leading European countries to consider whether the extra money they will be demanded to spend may be better if they can exercise (group) sovereignty over the armed forces it supports.
American currently guarantees Europes safety, but equally, American gets to extend its reach all across the globe. That costs, and if countries feel that the longer-term odds are in their favor elsewhere due to a short-term policy of me-first by the global hegemon, I don't see why we would be surprised about it - regardless of whether it is a good thing or bad.
In other words, a nation should act in its own interests. A novel concept.
-
Agreed, as I'm sure you would extend to the European countries?
I agree that Obama didn't help the situation with Europe, especially France. Nevertheless, the Trump presidency throws things in to greater focus - Europe protection and influence will be more reliant on Europe. To that end, why wouldn't the EU, as a political union, develop its own armed forces and begin to exert influence beyond its relationships with other powers (such as Russia, the UK, and the USA)?