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)

«‹›960 »

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

tekz posted:

What the gently caress is wrong with the EU

It's a trick by the Germans to destroy any possible rivals before starting the next world war.

# ? Dec 11, 2016 21:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 07:01

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

tekz posted:

What the gently caress is wrong with the EU

The bail-in rules are good - their whole purpose is to prevent taxpayers' money being used to save investors in the way that happened after the GFC. The problem here is that the Italian banks sold bonds to consumers as safe higher-yielding alternatives to conventional savings accounts, without explaining the risks of such investments.

# ? Dec 11, 2016 21:54

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

tekz posted:

What the gently caress is wrong with the EU

Everything

# ? Dec 11, 2016 22:04

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7DVh9IPHqM

# ? Dec 11, 2016 22:39

Mikl: Nov 8, 2009; Vote shit sandwich or the shit sandwich gets it!

LemonDrizzle posted:

The bail-in rules are good - their whole purpose is to prevent taxpayers' money being used to save investors in the way that happened after the GFC. The problem here is that the Italian banks sold bonds to consumers as safe higher-yielding alternatives to conventional savings accounts, without explaining the risks of such investments.

Not even this, that would immoral but somewhat legal.

Instead, consumers found their money transfered, unbeknownst to them, from savings accounts to bonds.

Some where called in by their bank and told "You have too much money in your savings account, it might cause problems with the authorities. Here, invest in some bonds."

When small business owners went to the banks to ask for a loan to invest into their business they were told "Ohhh, so sorry, we can't lend money out now. Of course, if you invested in some bonds, that would be a different matter entirely."

Internal bank memos, since leaked, forbid the bank employees from telling customers what exactly they were signing on for, under threat of termination. (Termination of employement, not Terminator termination, even though it wouldn't surprise me at all.)

And consumers trusted the bank. Because in the small-town reality of rural Italy, where most of the people who were screwed by this reside, the people advertising bonds to them, the people who manage their money, were often family friends or even relatives. "You wouldn't gently caress over your close friend / your brother / your cousin, would you? That's how I know I can trust you."

This, incidentally, is why populism has a lot of traction in Italy right now. It's easy to believe that "The establishment is loving you over!" when the establishment is loving you over.

# ? Dec 11, 2016 23:35

jaete: Jun 21, 2009; Nap Ghost

Mikl posted:

Instead, consumers found their money transfered, unbeknownst to them, from savings accounts to bonds.

I sincerely hope the bankers are going to jail for this. Don't know how likely that is to happen though. :smith:

# ? Dec 11, 2016 23:44

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Interesting piece in Der Spiegel talking about nuclear deterrence and defending Europe in the event that Trump follows through on his remarks about NATO and defending other countries:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-responds-to-trump-win-with-nuclear-deterrent-debate-a-1125186.html

quote:

For decades, the final line of defense for Europe against possible Russian aggression has been provided by the American nuclear arsenal. But since Donald Trump's election as the 45th president of the United States, officials in Berlin and Brussels are no longer certain that Washington will continue to hold a protective hand over Europe.
It isn't yet clear what foreign policy course the new administration will take -- that is, if it takes one at all. It could be that Trump will run US foreign policy under the same principle with which he operates his corporate empire: a maximum level of unpredictability.
With his disparaging statements during the campaign about NATO being "obsolete," Trump has already created doubts about the Americans' loyalty to the alliance. Consequently, Europe has begun preparing for a future in which it is likely to have to pick up a much greater share of the costs for its security.
But what happens if the president-elect has an even more fundamental shift in mind for American security policy? What if he questions the nuclear shield that provided security to Europe during the Cold War?
For more than 60 years, Germany entrusted its security to NATO and its leading power, the United States. Without a credible deterrent, the European NATO member states would be vulnerable to possible threats from Russia. It would be the end of the trans-Atlantic alliance.
In European capitals, officials have been contemplating the possibility of a European nuclear deterrent since Trump's election. The hurdles -- military, political and international law -- are massive and there are no concrete intentions or plans. Still, French diplomats in Brussels have already been discussing the issue with their counterparts from other member states: Could the French and the British, who both possess nuclear arsenals, step in to provide protection for other countries like Germany?
...
"It's good that this is finally being discussed," says Jan Techau, director of the Holbrooke Forum at the American Academy in Berlin. "The question of Europe's future nuclear defense is the elephant in the room in the European security debate. If the United States' nuclear security guarantee disappears, then it will be important to clarify who will protect us in the future. And how do we prevent ourselves from becoming blackmailable over the nuclear issue in the future?"
An essay in the November issue of Foreign Affairs argues that if Trump seriously questions the American guarantees, Berlin will have to consider establishing a European nuclear deterrent on the basis of the French and British capabilities. Germany's respected Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, meanwhile, even contemplated the "unthinkable" in an editorial: a German bomb.
...
Politicians in Berlin want to prevent a debate at all costs. "A public debate over what happens if Trump were to change the American nuclear doctrine is the very last thing that Germany needs right now," says Wolfgang Ischinger, head of the Munich Security Conference. "It would be a catastrophic mistake if Berlin of all places were to start that kind of discussion. Might Germany perhaps actually want a nuclear weapon, despite all promises to the contrary? That would provide fodder for any anti-German campaign."
The debate however, is no longer relegated the relatively safe circles of think tanks and foreign policy publications. In an interview that gained attention internationally in mid-November, Roderich Kiesewetter, the chairman for the conservative Christian Democrats on the Foreign Policy Committee in German parliament proposed a French-British nuclear shield in the event Trump calls into question American protection for Europe. "The US nuclear shield and nuclear security guarantees are imperative for Europe," he told Reuters. "If the United States no longer wants to provide this guarantee, Europe still needs nuclear protection for deterrent purposes."
Last weekend, Angela Merkel's chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, said in an interview that providing a nuclear shield for Europe was in America's "security policy interest." Besides, he said, "two EU member states possess nuclear weapons."

errr... about that last sentence...

# ? Dec 12, 2016 00:03

Dawncloack: Nov 26, 2007; ECKS DEE!; Nap Ghost

jaete posted:

I sincerely hope the bankers are going to jail for this. Don't know how likely that is to happen though.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Spanish banks sold the same kind of poo poo bonds to customers. What's going to happen? Well, Spanish courts decided that an illiterate (and not in the financial sense) was qualified to know what she was buying, so no compensation for her. That's an example, but in general 1 person in 1000 has been compensated.

Actually a couple of more than 1 in 1000 if you take into account the banks executives and their golden handshakes.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 00:03

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

tekz posted:

What the gently caress is wrong with the EU

The Germans were allowed to run it. You really shouldn't get to do that after all the death and destruction caused by the last two attempts to try and run Europe.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 00:47

Zudgemud: Mar 1, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Regarde Aduck posted:

The Germans were allowed to run it. You really shouldn't get to do that after all the death and destruction caused by the last two attempts to try and run Europe.

No, the problem is that it was designed with ignorance and too much optimism regarding the pace.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 00:59

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

LemonDrizzle posted:

errr... about that last sentence...

It's still true for two years plus however long it takes your inept government to finally officially invoke Article 50.

Also, a German bomb? A really, really bad idea.
- Proliferation is bad.
- Germany killed its nuclear industry. They're not going to be able to make a bomb by themselves unless they restart it.
- Nuclear deterrence is incredibly expensive. It's one full third of France's defense budget.
- Are we seriously talking about Germany spending a lot of money on something whose purpose is to never be used?
- Did I say it was expensive? Because it's really super expensive.
- Have I mentioned that the Germans are the stingiest misers who ever hoarded money in their grubby hands?
- Like, seriously.

Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:14

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

I don't think anybody wants to see Germany with nuclear weapons - maybe UK military protection could be offered in exchange for tariff free access to the single market?

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:19

feller: Jul 5, 2006

Pissflaps posted:

I don't think anybody wants to see Germany with nuclear weapons - maybe UK military protection could be offered in exchange for tariff free access to the single market?

Holy poo poo you killed me

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:42

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

Pissflaps posted:

I don't think anybody wants to see Germany with nuclear weapons - maybe UK military protection could be offered in exchange for tariff free access to the single market?

"And what, exactly, is covered by your offer of military protection?"
"Well, we have two aircraft carriers without aircraft, several other warships without missiles, none of which can leave the cold waters of the North Sea without the engines dying, the phone number of the French for when we need ASW planes to chase away Russian subs, and a fleet of Eurofighters that can't do anything because between us, Germany, Italy, and Spain, everybody was playing chicken hoping that some other country would pay the development cost for upgrades first."

# ? Dec 12, 2016 02:19

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

Sounds like someone doubts the supremely efficient European method of financing important services.

You loving communist.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 04:41

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

The Nordic Union will step up to the plate and create a nuclear deterrent, to supplement our biological weapon program.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:40

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The Nordic Union will step up to the plate and create a nuclear deterrent, to supplement our biological weapon program.

Dr�mmen om en svensk atombomb :sweden:

# ? Dec 12, 2016 07:27

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.

Endast kungen borde ha r�tten att avfyra k�rnvapnen.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 07:33

Phlegmish: Jul 2, 2011

Pissflaps posted:

I don't think anybody wants to see Germany with nuclear weapons - maybe UK military protection could be offered in exchange for tariff free access to the single market?

lmao

# ? Dec 12, 2016 07:56

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Cat Mattress posted:

"And what, exactly, is covered by your offer of military protection?"
"Well, we have two aircraft carriers without aircraft, several other warships without missiles, none of which can leave the cold waters of the North Sea without the engines dying, the phone number of the French for when we need ASW planes to chase away Russian subs, and a fleet of Eurofighters that can't do anything because between us, Germany, Italy, and Spain, everybody was playing chicken hoping that some other country would pay the development cost for upgrades first."

Well, this, and the nuclear weapons.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 08:16

Kassad: Nov 12, 2005; It's about time.

Pissflaps posted:

Well, this, and the nuclear weapons.

And? France has those already.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 08:28

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Pissflaps posted:

I don't think anybody wants to see Germany with nuclear weapons - maybe UK military protection could be offered in exchange for tariff free access to the single market?

See, I knew you were throwing all that money into the sinkhole of nuclear deterrence for an actual reason.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 08:43

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.

Let's finance the expanded european military with a tariff on Prosecco destined for the UK.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 08:48

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Kassad posted:

And? France has those already.

Maybe it'll be concluded that France's nuclear deterrent alone isn't sufficient?

# ? Dec 12, 2016 09:02

Shazback: Jan 26, 2013

Cat Mattress posted:

- Nuclear deterrence is incredibly expensive. It's one full third of France's defense budget.

A minor correction: 10% of the French annual defence budget.

http://decodeurs.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/06/05/cout-de-la-dissuasion-nucleaire-quand-jean-vincent-place-exagere/

# ? Dec 12, 2016 09:06

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The Nordic Union will step up to the plate and create a nuclear deterrent, to supplement our biological weapon program.

Surstr�mming is a war crime indeed

# ? Dec 12, 2016 09:38

Nyandaber Z: Apr 8, 2009

I don't know if having more nuclear weapons in Europe in case of USA pulling out is going to change anything. I doubt any european country is ready to pay to bring the arsenal up to USA/Russia level, not even talking about the diplomatic backlash that would cause. So either way, Russia would still heavily outpower us in the nuclear area, and Europe's population is concentrated in a much smaller area, making it even more vulnerable. Being able to gently caress up Moscow and maybe St Petersburg is the best deterrent we can hope to achieve, and we've already got it.

That said, nuclear weapon is only good for poker games (at least for now), and without US support Europe doesn't have much conventionnal military capabilities. Maybe those lazy germans can stop relying on foreign aid and pull their weight like the hardworking greeks are, being the 2nd behind USA in contributing % of their GDP as a NATO nation.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 11:25

Flowers For Algeria: Dec 3, 2005; I humbly offer my services as forum inquisitor. There is absolutely no way I would abuse this power in any way.

Maybe we weren't doing so bad as a whole when half of Germany was under Russian, uh, stewardship.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 11:44

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Cat Mattress posted:

It's still true for two years plus however long it takes your inept government to finally officially invoke Article 50.

Also, a German bomb? A really, really bad idea.
- Proliferation is bad.
- Germany killed its nuclear industry. They're not going to be able to make a bomb by themselves unless they restart it.
- Nuclear deterrence is incredibly expensive. It's one full third of France's defense budget.
- Are we seriously talking about Germany spending a lot of money on something whose purpose is to never be used?
- Did I say it was expensive? Because it's really super expensive.
- Have I mentioned that the Germans are the stingiest misers who ever hoarded money in their grubby hands?
- Like, seriously.

I think when planning for the defence of the nation, people normally want to consider time frames a bit longer than "two years + ????". Also, yeah, Germany's history of tight-fisted underspending and generally mooching off others and being a bad partner is easily the single biggest cause of Europe's comparative military weakness.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 11:46

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

LemonDrizzle posted:

I think when planning for the defence of the nation, people normally want to consider time frames a bit longer than "two years + ????". Also, yeah, Germany's history of tight-fisted underspending and generally mooching off others and being a bad partner is easily the single biggest cause of Europe's comparative military weakness.

Except that Germany's spending is pretty average compared to other European countries and pretty high, if you consider that it doesn't actually have a use for its military like France or the UK do.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 11:55

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:

Except that Germany's spending is pretty average compared to other European countries and pretty high, if you consider that it doesn't actually have a use for its military like France or the UK do.

Germany's spending as a proportion of GDP is below the EU average (which is itself well below the 2% target), and the whole point of a defensive military is as an insurance policy. The NATO spending target, which Germany has been failing to meet for decades, is intended to provide for an acceptable minimum capacity for self-defence and contribution to the defence of other alliance members.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 12:43

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

LemonDrizzle posted:

Germany's spending as a proportion of GDP is below the EU average (which is itself well below the 2% target), and the whole point of a defensive military is as an insurance policy.

There are a lot of different ways to calculate the military spending as a fraction of the GDP, including stuff like using the nominal or PPP figures, depending on what fits the narrative you are trying to sell best. For example, here is the telegraph saying that it was at 1.19% for 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/merkel-pledges-german-support-for-thousands-of-nato-troops-to-de/

The point is that it's a pretty normal level of spending for a European country and that there are a lot of countries spending much less. There is a lot of good reasons to criticize Germany, but being a military moocher inside the EU is not one of them.

quote:

The NATO spending target, which Germany has been failing to meet for decades, is intended to provide for an acceptable minimum capacity for self-defence and contribution to the defence of other alliance members.

That's just wrong. The acceptable minimum capacity for self-defence is decided by actual equipment needs and specific use scenarios, not by some arbitrary spending requirements. NATO military intelligence and member governments agree that there is no significant threat to european NATO member's security and buying 2k new tanks will not increase our security in any significant way. Nobody is taking the 2% spending target serious, because it's complete nonsense.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 15:42

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DarkCrawler posted:

Surstr�mming is a war crime indeed

I was thinking the Danish MRSA production actually.

Kassad posted:

And? France has those already.

Pretty sure the point is that the nuclear EU members might not be members for long. Even if Le Pen doesn't win this time, she probably will next time, and give the French a chance to the leave the EU after having just been hosed hard by a Thatcherite ghoul.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 16:04

Einbauschrank: Nov 5, 2009

throw to first drat IT posted:

"Watch this video of MUSLIM GIRL being ATTACKED!!! #racism #islamphobia #killallwhites"

"Those attackers look kinda swarthy"

"How DARE you make ASSUMPTIONS about them, you racist!"

Anyone still taking bets: They have apprehended one of the suspects (not the main suspect, though).

# ? Dec 12, 2016 18:47

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Einbauschrank posted:

Anyone still taking bets: They have apprehended one of the suspects (not the main suspect, though).

They're likely Turks or Arabs, because ethnic Germans stopped having kids in the 80's.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 19:13

TROIKA CURES GREEK: Jun 30, 2015; by R. Guyovich

Dawncloack posted:

Considering derivatives, the fragility of the European banking system and the risk of contagion?

The world's.

The us has very little exposure to euro banks and the net effect could even be positive fir the us since money would flow into the us because it's by far the safest place to put your money.

Do you even know what derivatives are?

# ? Dec 12, 2016 19:24

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:

There are a lot of different ways to calculate the military spending as a fraction of the GDP, including stuff like using the nominal or PPP figures, depending on what fits the narrative you are trying to sell best. For example, here is the telegraph saying that it was at 1.19% for 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/merkel-pledges-german-support-for-thousands-of-nato-troops-to-de/

The point is that it's a pretty normal level of spending for a European country and that there are a lot of countries spending much less. There is a lot of good reasons to criticize Germany, but being a military moocher inside the EU is not one of them.

That's just wrong. The acceptable minimum capacity for self-defence is decided by actual equipment needs and specific use scenarios, not by some arbitrary spending requirements. NATO military intelligence and member governments agree that there is no significant threat to european NATO member's security and buying 2k new tanks will not increase our security in any significant way. Nobody is taking the 2% spending target serious, because it's complete nonsense.

Germany has no military, period. You're dressing up a scarecrow.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 20:07

orange sky: May 7, 2007

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/808433349572382721

Ahahahah gently caress all these people hope they die a horrible slow death

The imf people that is

# ? Dec 12, 2016 23:10

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

A Buttery Pastry posted:

They're likely Turks or Arabs, because ethnic Germans stopped having kids in the 80's.

70s

# ? Dec 12, 2016 23:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 07:01

OhFunny: Jun 26, 2013; EXTREMELY PISSED AT THE DNC

Dutch to demand limits on Ukraine deal at EU summit

quote:

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte will ask European Union leaders on Thursday to rule out Ukraine joining the bloc for now and to place clear limits on the rewards they offer Kiev under a landmark cooperation agreement, diplomatic sources told Reuters.

Failure to meet the Dutch demands would jeopardize the agreement, which establishes closer political ties and envisages a gradual freeing-up of trade to bind Ukraine closer to western Europe and draw it away from Russia's orbit.

quote:

A draft document for the EU leaders to approve, prepared by the Dutch and seen by Reuters, also rules out financial or security guarantees for Ukraine and spells out that Ukrainians are not being given the right to live and work in the bloc.

God the EU is useless and worthless in it's current form.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 23:17

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

«‹›960 »