EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Guavanaut posted:

What does France have in common with Finland that it doesn't with Haiti? Or the Netherlands with Romania but not South Africa?

You mean aside from geography and level of socioeconomic development?

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 07:26

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Which of those do you believe to be most important in forming a union?

Should it be geography, in which case Eastern Europe might be better off with Russia than Western Europe; Greece, Turkey, and the former Yugoslav states should go well together; and Spain is a natural for union with Morocco.

Or should it be socioeconomic development, in which case you just end up with the rich developed nations club and gently caress everyone else.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:15

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Cat Mattress posted:

yes it's time to abolish all democratic institutions and welcome unbridled corporatocracy.

bring on the future from Syndicate.

I told you already homie, smash the nation-state concept, not the state.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:36

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Riso posted:

That was an unfortunate example because Haiti killed all whites and half-whites/blacks in their revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

The plantation owners whined about the abolition, and Napoleon granted them their wish by reestablishing slavery. They got what they deserved.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:37

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Riso posted:

That was an unfortunate example because Haiti killed all whites and half-whites/blacks in their revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

Lol I should feel sympathy for slave holders because they're white ah -bloo-bloo-bloo

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:38

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

YF-23 posted:

And with that sort of choice, I would rather live in the lovely Clusterfuck EU timeline than the Cold War 2: Triple Boogaloo one.

The worst method to politically organize the continent except for all the others.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:41

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

Riso posted:

That was an unfortunate example because Haiti killed all whites and half-whites/blacks in their revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

By the end of April 1804, some 3,000 to 5,000 people had been killed[23] and the white Haitians were practically eradicated. Only three categories of white people, except foreigners, were selected as exceptions and spared: the Polish soldiers who deserted from the French army; the little group of German colonists invited to Nord-Ouest (North-West), Haiti before the revolution; and a group of medical doctors and professionals.[14] Reportedly, also people with connections to officers in the Haitian army were spared, as well as the women who agreed to marry non-white men.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:46

Kurtofan: Feb 16, 2011; hon hon hon

because all the whites of Saint-Domingue were slaveholders.

Grand blancs (the slaveholding minority, most of them didn't take roots on the island and managed their plantations from France) =/= Petit blancs (merchants, indentured servants etc... who were long time residents).

Freedmen and free coloureds also had slaves, but lived in the colony, contrary to the grand blancs.

Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Sep 10, 2016

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:48

lollontee: Nov 4, 2014; Can't post for 10 years!

Actually, can we not bring in 200 year old atrocities with their own complicated histories as an analogue for completely unrelated modern events? Thanks!

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:50

Andrast: Apr 21, 2010

That's kind of how revolutions go, innocent people will always end up in the mix too.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:51

Kopijeger: Feb 14, 2010

If I remember correctly from the Revolutions podcast, the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were mostly Coloureds (of mixed European/African ancestry) who kept the Blacks (unmixed Africans) working on the plantations much like before.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 11:53

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Kopijeger posted:

If I remember correctly from the Revolutions podcast, the leaders of the Haitian Revolution were mostly Coloureds (of mixed European/African ancestry) who kept the Blacks (unmixed Africans) working on the plantations much like before.

Much like the bourgeois were the instigators of the French Revolution proper then.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 12:18

Pluskut Tukker: May 20, 2012

YF-23 posted:

As sympathetic as I am to it, anti-EU sentiment will go nowhere. Here's the problem with the EU's political situation: because the various member state policies are not harmonised, their politics are not harmonised, and they vote on different terms and agendas. As a result you don't see true "European politics", but whoever happens to have the most influence in the countries with the most MPs wins the Euroelections and gets to set the EU agenda.

There's an ongoing debate within European Union Studies about who exactly gets to set the agenda in the EU (and when, and under what circumstances; the answers differ broadly speaking depending on policy field, what competences the EU have and what the political salience of a topic is. Addditionally, the answers may change over time), but with regard to the general direction of the EU's policies, this is not how it works. The EU's general political direction and priorities are set by the European Council, which is to say, the heads of government of the member state, no Euroelections required. The European Commission may try to use its right of initiative to nudge overall policy a bit in this or that direction, but since every single act of the EU outside specifically delegated powers requires the approval of the member states, they really are the masters of the Treaties.

That also means that the EU setting a different political course will also be dependent on what sort of governments get elected in the member states and what ideas are floating around. I think there's some reason for optimism here: austerity really is becoming totally discredited as a policy, tax avoidance and evasion are coming under attack, people are becoming more aware of the nasty consequences of TTIP and ISDS, and governments feel pressured to respond, as does the Commission. So we have the EU refusing to fine Spain and Portugal for breaking the deficit rules, forcing Ireland to tax Apple and the Netherlands to tax Starbucks,, and now Juncker wanting to make the Stability and Growth Pact rules more flexible. However, how far the Commission gets with this is entirely dependent on what the member states want, so if that proposal goes nowhere, you can blame ~~Germany~~ them. But the more left-wing/ centre-left governments get elected, the likelier it will be that the EU becomes about 'Social Europe' again.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 12:49

double nine: Aug 8, 2013

Kopijeger posted:

Not this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE70jrhOrjk

I mean if we're talking invading England ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VOzZ5WRziw

double nine fucked around with this message at 12:56 on Sep 10, 2016

# ? Sep 10, 2016 12:52

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Guavanaut posted:

Which of those do you believe to be most important in forming a union?

Should it be geography, in which case Eastern Europe might be better off with Russia than Western Europe; Greece, Turkey, and the former Yugoslav states should go well together; and Spain is a natural for union with Morocco.

Or should it be socioeconomic development, in which case you just end up with the rich developed nations club and gently caress everyone else.

It's not either/or, both factors are important.

On a completely separate note:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/774580821068017665
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/774580647788765185
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/774580086179758080

Interesting times...

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:13

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Pluskut Tukker posted:

But the more left-wing/ centre-left governments get elected, the likelier it will be that the EU becomes about 'Social Europe' again.

Left-wing governments don't get elected, though. Left-wing parties have been replaced by right-wing pod people pretending to be left-wing, and voters have turned to vote for far right reactionaries instead.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:18

Doctor Malaver: May 23, 2007; Ce qui s'est pass� t'a rendu plus fort

LemonDrizzle posted:

It's not either/or, both factors are important.

And so are cultural.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:25

Pluskut Tukker: May 20, 2012

Cat Mattress posted:

Left-wing governments don't get elected, though. Left-wing parties have been replaced by right-wing pod people pretending to be left-wing, and voters have turned to vote for far right reactionaries instead.

Well, then we're all doomed I guess.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:27

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

Guavanaut posted:

Which of those do you believe to be most important in forming a union?

Should it be geography, in which case Eastern Europe might be better off with Russia than Western Europe; Greece, Turkey, and the former Yugoslav states should go well together; and Spain is a natural for union with Morocco.

Or should it be socioeconomic development, in which case you just end up with the rich developed nations club and gently caress everyone else.

The most important thing in any union is the desire and willingness of all involved parties to enter into it. Matters of geography or socio-economic status can be overcome if the will is there.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:27

The Belgian: Oct 28, 2008

Pluskut Tukker posted:

The European Parliament has made an excellent choice in appointing Guy Verhofstadt as their Brexit negotiator, at least if you assume their objective is to maximize the potential for entertainment:

YES YES YES

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:45

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

54.4 crowns posted:

Dumbest of fucks...

That piss poor deflection does not change the fact that your darling fascist bully boy is responsible for Muslims comming to Europe to rape all your white women.

Quisling

What the gently caress

# ? Sep 10, 2016 13:46

YF-23: Feb 17, 2011; My god, it's full of cat!

Pluskut Tukker posted:

There's an ongoing debate within European Union Studies about who exactly gets to set the agenda in the EU (and when, and under what circumstances; the answers differ broadly speaking depending on policy field, what competences the EU have and what the political salience of a topic is. Addditionally, the answers may change over time), but with regard to the general direction of the EU's policies, this is not how it works. The EU's general political direction and priorities are set by the European Council, which is to say, the heads of government of the member state, no Euroelections required. The European Commission may try to use its right of initiative to nudge overall policy a bit in this or that direction, but since every single act of the EU outside specifically delegated powers requires the approval of the member states, they really are the masters of the Treaties.

That's what I meant when I said that national politics govern the course of the EU. Euroelections was an example I brought up because, even in those, people tend to vote with national issues in mind rather than European ones. The way the European Council works also results in national politics determining EU politics.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 14:11

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

Regarde Aduck posted:

What the gently caress

reads like durnkposting

# ? Sep 10, 2016 16:45

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:

Lol I should feel sympathy for slave holders because they're white ah -bloo-bloo-bloo

There were a lot of poor whites in Haiti that didn't own slaves.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 17:44

Squalid: Nov 4, 2008

Andrast posted:

That's kind of how revolutions go, innocent people will always end up in the mix too.

I was reading Thucydides the other day and I noticed one passage on revolution sounded oddly relevant to the modern world:

History of the Peloponnesian War posted:

So bloody was the march of the revolution, and the impression which it made was the greater as it was one of the first to occur. Later on, one may say, the whole Hellenic world was convulsed; struggles being every, where made by the popular chiefs to bring in the Athenians, and by the oligarchs to introduce the Lacedaemonians. [. . .] The sufferings which revolution entailed upon the cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred and always will occur, as long as the nature of mankind remains the same [. . .]. In peace and prosperity, states and individuals have better sentiments, because they do not find themselves suddenly confronted with imperious necessities; but war takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes.

Revolution thus ran its course from city to city, and the places which it arrived at last, from having heard what had been done before, carried to a still greater excess the refinement of their inventions, as manifested in the cunning of their enterprises and the atrocity of their reprisals. Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. In fine, to forestall an intending criminal, or to suggest the idea of a crime where it was wanting, was equally commended until even blood became a weaker tie than party, from the superior readiness of those united by the latter to dare everything without reserve; for such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this perfidious vengeance sweeter than an open one, since, considerations of safety apart, success by treachery won him the palm of superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first.

The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention. The leaders in the cities, each provided with the fairest professions, on the one side with the cry of political equality of the people, on the other of a moderate aristocracy, sought prizes for themselves in those public interests which they pretended to cherish, and, recoiling from no means in their struggles for ascendancy engaged in the direst excesses; in their acts of vengeance they went to even greater lengths, not stopping at what justice or the good of the state demanded, but making the party caprice of the moment their only standard, and invoking with equal readiness the condemnation of an unjust verdict or the authority of the strong arm to glut the animosities of the hour. Thus religion was in honour with neither party; but the use of fair phrases to arrive at guilty ends was in high reputation. Meanwhile the moderate part of the citizens perished between the two, either for not joining in the quarrel, or because envy would not suffer them to escape.

[. . .] In the confusion into which life was now thrown in the cities, human nature, always rebelling against the law and now its master, gladly showed itself ungoverned in passion, above respect for justice, and the enemy of all superiority; since revenge would not have been set above religion, and gain above justice, had it not been for the fatal power of envy. Indeed men too often take upon themselves in the prosecution of their revenge to set the example of doing away with those general laws to which all alike can look for salvation in adversity, instead of allowing them to subsist against the day of danger when their aid may be required.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 19:54

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Cat Mattress posted:

Left-wing governments don't get elected, though. Left-wing parties have been replaced by right-wing pod people pretending to be left-wing, and voters have turned to vote for far right reactionaries instead.

So the response is to weaken the only organization that can slow down the far right for long enough to give the left a chance to come back. The EU at least presents the member governments with regulations that prevent them from engaging in an unilateral slide into fascism - unless they are willing to be condemned by the rest of Europe. As long as there are some elected governments that subscribe to the traditional European values, the reactionary forces have to deal with intergovernmental pressure that manifests itself as possibly withholding membership privileges.

The same goes for neo-liberalism. The measure of neo-liberal policies in Europe is not dictated by technocrats in Brussels, but by elected governments. In fact the EU is the main force that prevents European countries from engaging in a destructive race to the bottom of anti-regulatory and totally laissez faire policies, such as we see among Republican-led US states, because the framework for cooperation and arbitration the EU presents gives governments a measure of influence to block reactionary economic policies in other countries as long as the support for such policies isn't unanimous. Without the EU or a similar forum for creating common policies, European countries would be forced to undermine their own authority and become increasingly subservient to international capital (more so than they already are).

The only people who are seriously calling for the EU to dissolve are fascists even if they use nominally "pro-worker" rhetoric, such as His Shadow.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Sep 10, 2016

# ? Sep 10, 2016 20:42

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

Squalid posted:

I was reading Thucydides the other day and I noticed one passage on revolution sounded oddly relevant to the modern world:

Revolutions generally only happen when things are already in the shitter, so it isn't surprising that there'd be some commonality through the ages.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 20:48

His Divine Shadow: Aug 7, 2000; I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.

steinrokkan posted:

The only people who are seriously calling for the EU to dissolve are fascists even if they use nominally "pro-worker" rhetoric, such as His Shadow.

No u.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 20:49

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

His Divine Shadow posted:

No u.

"Anti-globalism", "anti-trade" etc. positions are just ways to send a very clear "gently caress you, got mine" message to the third world, letting them know that we are not ok with them becoming more than resource extractors for our factories.

Also good luck setting up your own semi-conductor fabricating industry in absence of globalized trade, or get your alloying metals without the evils of trade. Turns out trade is good, as long it only benefits us, and as long as it's only us who dictates the rules, not the filthy periphery who should be happy to sell their crap to us for peanuts.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:08

His Divine Shadow: Aug 7, 2000; I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.

Haha sure nice strawman, what I'd expect from a fascist.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:12

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

steinrokkan posted:

"Anti-globalism", "anti-trade" etc. positions are just ways to send a very clear "gently caress you, got mine" message to the third world, letting them know that we are not ok with them becoming more than resource extractors for our factories.

Yes, I'm sure all the sweat shop workers in developing countries would share your analysis of globalism.

(and I say this as someone who isn't necessarily anti-globalism, but good lord, dude)

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:16

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Majorian posted:

Yes, I'm sure all the sweat shop workers in developing countries would share your analysis of globalism.

(and I say this as someone who isn't necessarily anti-globalism, but good lord, dude)

What we need is a framework for a global enforcement of basic labor standards, not a rejection of trade. I.e. a WTO-sanctioned system of agreements where the removal of trade barriers is conditional upon harmonization of regulatory instruments. The problem isn't in trade itself, it's in the fact that people keep electing governments with no interest in addressing substantial issues. And instead of trying to change that, the trend is to rally against the abstract concept of free trade instead of its current implementation.

Also what do you think would happen to those workers if they lost their customers of industrial goods? They would have to return to commodity extraction under even worse conditions.

His Divine Shadow posted:

Haha sure nice strawman, what I'd expect from a fascist.

You have been cheerleading a death of international trade in this very thread.

steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 10, 2016

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:22

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

steinrokkan posted:

What we need is a framework for a global enforcement of basic labor standards, not a rejection of trade. I.e. a WTO-sanctioned system of agreements where the removal of trade barriers is conditional upon harmonization of regulatory instruments. The problem isn't in trade itself, it's in the fact that people keep electing governments with no interest in addressing substantial issues. And instead of trying to change that, the trend is to rally against the abstract concept of free trade instead of its current implementation.

, but that's a difficult thing to sell to people who have been genuinely screwed over by past botched attempts at implementing it.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:26

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Majorian posted:

, but that's a difficult thing to sell to people who have been genuinely screwed over by past botched attempts at implementing it.

Well, it's something that has been happening, globally. It would be hard to find a country not engaged in some regional agreement to protect national standards from unethical competition (aka racing to the bottom) via de-linking internal and external trade barriers. What we need it to move from the WTO silently tolerating such arrangements to actively encouraging further networking of these regional blocs into a system of global trade governance.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:35

Regarde Aduck: Oct 19, 2012; c l o u d k i t t e n; Grimey Drawer

His Divine Shadow posted:

Haha sure nice strawman, what I'd expect from a fascist.

Fine. I'll just assume he's right about you.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:46

His Divine Shadow: Aug 7, 2000; I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.

Regarde Aduck posted:

Fine. I'll just assume he's right about you.

What a great tip for others in D&D, just call someone a fascist if you disagree with him, and turnabout's not fair play either then! If you aren't part of the globalization train you're a fascist and no two ways about it.

gently caress you, gently caress him and gently caress the idea I need to merit such accusations with anything but mockery.

# ? Sep 10, 2016 21:57

Yinlock: Oct 22, 2008

His Divine Shadow posted:

What a great tip for others in D&D, just call someone a fascist if you disagree with him, and turnabout's not fair play either then! If you aren't part of the globalization train you're a fascist and no two ways about it.

gently caress you, gently caress him and gently caress the idea I need to merit such accusations with anything but mockery.

Actually I'm pretty sure you need to defend rabid isolationism with something besides "Globalism Bad"

# ? Sep 10, 2016 22:07