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)

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

LMAO, only 10% of France thinks that Macron is capable of understanding the daily lives of most French people, but is also the most presidential.

There's a bunch of degenerate Louis XVI descendants hanging around if what France really wants is a distant, imperial presidency that has no connection with them but will also have the power to create whole scale change of society.

Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Apr 4, 2017

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 10:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 20:55

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Or it'll be JLM 23%, Macron 24.5% and Le Pen 26%. After which it'll be Macron all day every day, and everybody will forget that almost a quarter of the French electorate wanted a more socialist alternative, and you get Thatcher lite because "otherwise Le Pen" and things continue to get worse.

Because hope is a lie.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 10:47

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Politico is the publication of choice for people who consider themselves 'in the know' in Washington. The house rag of the US political class. As that class has deep connections and relevance to the EU politicals, it makes sense that it's popular with them.

A bit.

But more like they partnered with Axel Springer and bought out 2 previous EU/Brussels news organisations (Vieuws and one other I can't remember) and then reinforced their position.

They now have more journalists here in Brussels than I think anyone else, so it's not so much a transatlantic conspiracy but rather the politics follow the news and vice-versa.

Plus, while I don't always love their tone, in many ways they at least try to make Brussels seem a bit more relevant and open. Some of the other EU-specific papers are like Sanskrit if you're not part of the gang.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2017 16:39

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Disobeying the truly idiotic Fiscal Compact should be the first job of most heads of state, except probably Germany.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 11:21

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

His Divine Shadow posted:

The question I find myself asking is, can we focus and aim that kind of thing at the 1%?

We can.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 12:07

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Toplowtech posted:

No that's the Orleanistes. The legitimistes only believee a descendant of Louis XIV who isn't from the house of Orleans(TRAITORS! etc...) is the rightful king. So a Spanish Bourbon is their current choice. No one else care for that bullshit. You shouldn't either.

I know some people who care deeply. It's hysterical.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 09:12

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

http://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-wants-uk-to-pay-brexit-costs-in-euros/

quote:

European Commission wants UK to pay Brexit costs � in euros

Brussels wants the UK to pay all related costs and bear the currency risk, according to draft negotiating directives.

The European Commission wants Britain to pick up the tab for any costs related to its departure from the EU, such as the relocation of agencies now hosted by the U.K., and bear the currency risk by paying in euros, according to a draft of Brussels� negotiating plan.

The hard line for the Brexit talks, laid out in a draft of the Commission�s detailed negotiating directives obtained by POLITICO, also includes tight protections for EU citizens and the EU budget, robust legal controls for any transitional phase for U.K. withdrawal, and clear guarantees for businesses whose goods go on the market before the �divorce� is finalized.

But it is the Commission�s approach to the U.K.�s ongoing financial obligations to the EU that stands out in the document, suggesting that Brussels wants to make it very clear that leaving the bloc doesn�t come cheap.

�The United Kingdom should fully cover the specific costs related to the withdrawal process such as the relocation of the agencies or other Union bodies,� the Commission wrote, adding that the U.K.�s financial obligations to the EU �should be defined in euro� rather than sterling.

The Commission�s directives, which will provide a careful roadmap for the EU�s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, can only be adopted once leaders of the remaining 27 EU member countries have approved broader guidelines now being developed by the European Council. The 27 will meet to discuss those guidelines at an extraordinary summit in Brussels on April 29.

But even as the Council�s draft guidelines were being revised and reviewed by diplomats in Brussels and in capitals across the Continent, officials at the Commission have been hard at work on the more detailed directives, under the close supervision of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, his chief-of-staff, Martin Selmayr, as well as Barnier and his team.

The document is likely to enliven discussions between Juncker and Prime Minister Theresa May when they meet next Wednesday in London.

In response to an inquiry from POLITICO, Daniel Ferrie, a spokesman for Barnier and the Commission�s Brexit team, responded: �I�m afraid we do not comment on leaks.�

Settling accounts

The Commission draft takes a more in-your-face approach than EU officials had previously suggested. Barnier himself, in a speech last month in Brussels, insisted the EU was not out to penalize the U.K. but was merely holding London to its commitments.

�Each country must honor its commitments to each other,� Barnier said. �Let me be clear: when a country leaves the Union, there is no punishment. There is no price to pay to leave. But we must settle the accounts. We will not ask the British to pay a single euro for something they have not agreed to as a member.�

The Commission�s draft, while hardly punitive, indicates that there is a price to leave � at least to the extent that there are expenses directly tied to the withdrawal. While some analyses have estimated the U.K.�s long-term obligations to the EU will run as high as �60 billion, there have been no projections of mechanical costs of the pull-out alone.

In addition to the relocation of agencies now situated in Britain, those costs could include the travel and expenses of negotiators on both sides, as well as extraordinary summit meetings of EU leaders, and more.

In a reflection of the bureaucratic labyrinth of EU operations that the U.K. hopes to escape, the Commission�s thinking was drafted in a document titled �Non Paper on Key Elements Likely to Feature in the Draft Negotiating Directives.�

The start of the formal negotiations could now face slight delays because of May�s decision to hold snap national election in Britain on June 8, EU diplomats have generally taken the view that the U.K.�s election timeline should not alter the planning and preparations in Brussels or the drafting of legal instructions to Barnier and his team.

One European Council official said that the Commission�s legal paper on the negotiating directives and the draft guidelines will be agreed and published before the British election campaign heats up. The official said major changes were not expected as a result of the U.K. election.

But at least one EU government has expressed concern about hardening the EU�s negotiation positions before the results of the June 8 vote. Such concerns are certain to be discussed at a General Affairs Council meeting next Thursday, where diplomats will meet to prepare for the summit on April 29.

Part of the concern is that issuing any formal negotiating positions could be seen as prejudging the outcome of the U.K. vote or even meddling in the election, in which opinion polls show an overwhelming advantage for May�s Conservatives. Already some senior officials in Brussels have expressed hope that the election will give May the strong mandate she needs to silence some hard-line Brexiteers, which could help reach an agreement on an orderly withdrawal more quickly.

No loopholes

The Commission�s draft obtained by POLITICO closely tracks the priorities of the emerging Council guidelines, including a strong emphasis on citizens� rights. �The withdrawal agreement should provide the necessary comprehensive, effective, enforceable and non-discriminatory guarantees for those citizens� rights,� the Commission wrote.

Like the Council�s guidelines, the Commission�s draft directives pointedly insist on settling the terms of the U.K.�s withdrawal before turning to the framework of a future relationship, presumably an expansive free-trade agreement.

The Commission document also underscores the excruciating level of detail that will be required to prevent chaos when the U.K. leaves the EU. For instance, the Commission wants to be sure that businesses will not have to recall commercial goods put on the market prior to the U.K.�s withdrawal date.

�The Agreement should ensure that any good lawfully placed on the market of the Union on the basis of Union law before the withdrawal date can remain on the market/be used for the first time/put into service after that date both in the United Kingdom and in the EU27 under the conditions set out in the relevant Union law applicable before the withdrawal date,� the Commission wrote.

And the Commission wants to be sure that no legal loopholes or gray areas are created during the divorce process, saying in the document for example that the eventual deal �should ensure the continued application of the rules of Union law relating to choices of forum and choices of law made before the withdrawal date.�

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 14:58

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Dawncloack posted:

So they have the upper hand and want to make it painful. Don't they risk pushing the UK too far and breaking something more imporant, say, NATO?

No. The UK decided to leave, why should the rest of the EU pony up for our staff to fly over there, do the negotiations etc.? You break it, you buy the short-term consequences while we discuss the big exit bill.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2017 16:41

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

steinrokkan posted:

Is Belgium consistently the worst country or what.

Belgium is cool and good but only if you're able to avoid dealing with the administration.

However, it also means that Belgian administration doesn't work when they need to deal with you if you're a terrorist.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 08:42

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Most people I've spoken to here in Brussels this week are now starting to poo poo themselves that it might be Meluche vs. Le Pen. Little late in the game, but I appreciate their efforts.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2017 10:35

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

lost in postation posted:

When I lived in London, French expats seemed to veer a lot more right than that, mostly UMP or FN. But I guess the motivator for these (mostly wealthy) people is primarily fiscal policy, so Macron deffo makes sense.

All the French people I know here are voting Macron, some Fillion but they were cunts before this election.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 14:13

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Dawncloack posted:

Also a source on the "further" because that implies it has been already, and I'd like to know where you are coming from.

I'm guessing that he means the Lisbon Treaty, where the European Parliament became a full co-legislator with Council, rather than consultative partner?

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 17:20

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

MiddleOne posted:

I don't think the regular's of this thread like you and I are in any capacity a representative sample of any electorate.

Also thank you for proving my point. There are in fact two councils. First the European Council, which is seated by the heads of states of the member states and which elects the commission and handles treaties. Then there is the Council of Minsters (which has a formal title that somehow even more confusing, the Council of the European Union), which is seated by the relevant government ministers of member states and is the second legaslative body of the EU (the first being the parliament). Also, if you're ever bored do actually look up the formal process for legislation in the EU. It is by far the most intrusive and over-complicated legislative system in the world (competing with Iran and the US) and it has intentionally been structured in such a way such to neuter the Parliament and Commission's ability to act too independently of the Council of Ministers and European Council. It's almost comical in just how many of the steps in the legislative process a proposal can get shot down or sent backwards for further review. It was intentionally designed to be obtrusive and slow.

EDIT: Here's a chart of the relationships between EU institutions. Do note how the only directly elected parts of the systems are the member states own parliaments and the European parliament. Everything else is seated by the representatives of other representatives.

Well, no.

First off, let's not kid ourselves and pretend that if you made flowcharts of most EU democracies where you included the courts and auditor systems, you wouldn't get something rather similar.

The only added layer that makes Europe more complicated is that it arises from the very fact that it is Europe; i.e. 28 (for now) Member States who all get a say at various levels in the process. That seems entirely reasonable to me, and the diagram you included should actually have a big red text at the bottom saying "YOUR GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR YOU IN BRUSSELS AND IS CO-RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS THERE, NEVER MIND WHAT THEY PRETEND AT HOME".

The decision making process is structured in such a way to give Member States and Parliament the most input at every stage, which is sort of necessary if you want to create legitimacy in the process, yes? While you may not like your current government, or the decisions it makes at home or in Brussels, you can't deny that the Will Of Your Country - from Malta to Germany - isn't heard. This is exactly why the structure is the way it is.

The process wasn't designed to be obtrusive or slow, the process was designed for input along the way; blame the Member States (for the most part) for (ab)using that system to make it as such. The EU is, so far as I can tell, a not-too-bad reflection of most of the governments of the EU. That their decisions and positions aren't yours, I agree - they aren't mine either. But that doesn't mean that you, through your own elected MEPs (if you bothered to vote) and your government, doesn't get a say.

Finally, the importance of having a difference between Council of Ministers and Council of Heads of State should be obvious; the first one goes into more detail and handles individual legislative pieces that concern their area of responsibility (finance, agriculture, fisheries, culture etc), and the Heads of State meet to set the overall course and strategy. That kind of design makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Maybe they should've named them the Council of Ministers and the other the Heads of State Slumber Camp (to avoid repetition of the word Council), but otherwise it's perfectly sensible.

The reason, as was pointed out before, why most people don't understand the EU process is because generally they don't understand their own home processes, especially if you add in the courts and auditors checks.

XyrlocShammypants posted:

Yea Macron winning the first round means Le Pen has an almost zero chance of winning now

Write that down now, with a date on it and pray you're right. After last year, and given some of the moods and undercurrents in France and the EU at the moment, I'm not comfortable anymore.

Plus, next thing we'll have is Italian elections, and we will all be back here again, praying that M5S doesn't win.

Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 23, 2017

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 20:17

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Andrast posted:

The EU isn't a single country and the backlash to that would be immense.

The alternative, which you have now, is that one single country *cough* Luxembourg *cough* can hold up things like banking reform to increase transparency and reduce the ability of companies and people to avoid or evade taxes.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 20:31

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

MiddleOne posted:

Oh brother that's not even the legislative chart. That's just a chart illustrating the relations of the 7 core institutions that make up the EU. Here is an actual legislative chart, and no, most member have a substantially less steps than this.

Yeah, sorry, but I don't really have a problem with that flowchart. I don't know how you design a system where all 28 Member States + 768 MEPs can have their voices heard and compromises reached without something looking like that. A much simpler system would be much more open too abuse or lead to even more outcries of people going all 'faceless Eurocrats deciding on bendy cucumbers".

quote:

Yes but that's not an unintended consequence, that is intentional. It allows governments to hold different positions domestically and supra-nationally without angering voters. See for instance Sweden having a super liberal immigration policy domestically for decades while pretty much rubber stamping almost every anti-immigration policy and treaty amendment in the Council of Ministers and European Council. It's not a design flaw, it's working exactly as it's supposed to.

No, it isn't intentional. It's that most citizens are too ignorant of the EU that they let their elected representatives and administrators get away with it. In terms of the immigration issue, it's not surprising that Sweden hasn't won; there are many more anti countries in the EU than there are pro. That's been true for 20 odd years now; the Swedish, like most other countries, try their best to get some of their issues into the final compromise. Don't think for a moment that Sweden is being sidelined on the issue, it's just that they are outvoted and outfought on these issues, and since the Lisbon treaty you don't need Council unanimity to proceed anymore; Sweden could theoretically hold out and be the only No vote, but that wouldn't help the bigger outcome anyway, so why burn through your diplomatic capital?

quote:

MP's are already elected locally so remind me again why we need representatives of representatives to do this. And no, the democratic legitimacy of the EU is perceived as very low specifically because of systems like these.

I don't know how it works in your country, but in most (I think all, but could be wrong) EU countries, MEPs are either chosen directly or through a national list. The MEPs from most countries are not selected by the sitting MPs or government. That's just simply untrue. The EU does have a democratic legitimacy problem, but MEPs or Brussels can't really be held responsible when only 30 odd percent of the population comes out to vote for their MEPs. Then you just want to complain after the fact on basis of falsehood.

quote:

Hey, lets call a spade a spade. The EU has unnecessarily many avenues of 'input' if that is what you want to call it. The US (Fillibuster, Presidential VETO and the Supreme Court) and Iran (Guardian Council) have similar problems. The EU apes separations of powers as a system and somehow manages to be worse than literally every other implementation of it. I wonder why that might be.

Because there are 28 Member States and the Parliament. Any system involving 28 separate governments working together will by its very nature be complicated and compromises difficult. You're making the wrong comparison with regards to Iran and the US. The much better comparison would be NATO or the UN, but with genuine legal enforcement, which makes the system difficult by design. It's not designed to gently caress over any specific citizen of Europe, but that the outcome of the system reflects the mean compromise of all different governments + MEPs. I don't know how you build a system like that without having lots of input avenues to give it legitimacy, without creating complexity. If you think the EU system itself is fundamentally flawed and maybe we shouldn't have one, that's a different argument.

quote:

Yes, but that's a flaw of the entire EU member state system. American's have at least a vague understanding of how Congress functions and so do most national citizens of their parliament and government structure. They might not know the details of the legislative process, but they do at least know who to blame when things go against their interests. In comparison, EU citizens have barely any understanding of what the European Parliament capabilities within the EU even are and much less how Commission, Council's, member states and courts all play into it. Just look at the debates that preceded Brexit if you believe otherwise. That's without even getting into bodies like the Eurogroup which exists outside of the formal power-structure but wield huge power within certain countries.

I think you vastly overestimate the competence of most US citizens in understanding the functioning of Congress; I doubt that a majority could name the three branches of government there, let alone explain why there is a separation. And the EU gets blamed for a ton of poo poo because the Member State governments are very happy to play the shell game of blaming Brussels for things they themselves were in charge of / had a hand in creating. It's a fundamental dishonesty that's been perpetrated by the Member States for far too long.

The one issue that I immediately concede and should be removed immediately is the Eurogroup, which is entirely without oversight or regulation and has acted in an absolutely gross manner without a formal power structure. It should be destroyed or brought under the supervision of the EP immediately. There we wholly agree.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 22:12

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

XyrlocShammypants posted:

Le Pen will never be president of France

Please tell me what shares you own so I can do the opposite.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 22:54

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Pluskut Tukker posted:

I see we haven't talked enough about Greece recently .

Let's!

quote:

Greece headed for debt showdown

WASHINGTON � Greece wasn�t on the agenda of the International Monetary Fund�s spring meetings over the past several days. Perhaps it should have been.

Greece-watchers were hoping the Washington confab, which brings together senior financial policy makers from across the globe, would lead to a breakthrough in the country�s tortuous bailout negotiations as the key players met privately on the sidelines of the gathering.

Instead, Greek officials left empty-handed. IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde issued a terse statement after meeting with Greece�s finance minister, saying only that they had held �constructive discussions.� At her closing press conference, she declined to even take questions from Greek reporters.

Athens has until July to secure a fresh injection of cash so it can service its debts and avert another default.

Though Greece has faced similar deadlines in recent years, this time the real standoff is between its paymasters. For the past year, the IMF and Europe have been at odds over Greece�s fiscal targets. The question is how much more economic pain can creditors realistically impose on Greece without snuffing growth and triggering political instability.

The obvious solution is debt relief. With Greece burdened by a debt load of more than �300 billion, the IMF insists forgiving a chunk of its obligations, held by European institutions, is the only way to put it on a sustainable path. Germany, however, has rejected calls for outright debt forgiveness, saying such a step would violate European rules and create a dangerous precedent.

Greece is a sticky issue for the IMF. Under its guidelines, it can�t commit any resources to a bailout program until it�s convinced of the country�s medium-term prospects. So far, Greece hasn�t met that test.

After granting Greece billions in assistance in past bailouts, non-European members of the IMF�s board are reluctant to do more without debt relief.

Germany remains the biggest obstacle. With the German election set for late September and the Greek rescues hugely unpopular among Germans, Berlin is unlikely to back down and agree to a debt deal.

At the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel�s government needs to get the IMF on board. When Germany endorsed Greece�s latest bailout in 2015, it did so on the condition the IMF would join at some point. Merkel�s conservative backbenchers worry that without IMF oversight, Greece will find a way to skirt its obligations under the deal, which expires next year. Other countries, including the Netherlands and Finland, also want the IMF participate.

While Greece has already committed to sweeping economic overhauls and spending cuts, the IMF believes more is needed. Earlier this month, the parties agreed on �the size, timing and sequencing of the reforms� Athens must undertake to secure another tranche of aid. EU and IMF officials are expected to travel to Athens in the coming days to try to finalize the arrangement. Yet IMF officials caution that achieving a deal on the technical details won�t be easy.

�We need a package that�s credible, both in terms of the policies and in terms of the debt relief needed to improve sustainability,� said Poul Thomsen, the director of the IMF�s European department.

Greece has agreed to a budget surplus target, which doesn�t include interest payments on its debt, of 3.5 percent of gross domestic product. The question is when it will hit that goal and for how long. While the surplus would help it pay down its debt, the IMF worries it would also throttle growth if maintained for too long.

Greece said on Friday that it achieved a surplus of 3.9 percent in 2016, far exceeding its target of 0.5 percent. Yet IMF officials suspect it achieved the surplus by not paying its bills and other measures that are neither sustainable nor conducive to spurring economic growth.

�There�s some major movements here that need to be understood,� Thomsen said. �The issue is not the targets but the credibility of targets being maintained over the medium term while the economy is growing.�

European officials, meanwhile, say they are confident a deal can be reached by next month.

�Let�s not put ourselves under pressure,� European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs Pierre Moscovici said. �We have the parameters for an agreement in May.�

https://www.politico.eu/article/greece-headed-for-debt-showdown

Lmao, let's just keep doing the exact same thing over and over again. It's like Groundhog Day, but with people dying in poverty and fascism on the rise instead of Bill Murray.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2017 10:20

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Pluskut Tukker posted:

Uh, what? The article in the Nouvel Observateur is about genuine trolls organising to stop Macron. IT doesn't by any means suggest what you say it does.

I thought they didn't do so well in sunlight. Are they going to hold up signs that can be read as you cross the bridge?

# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 13:48

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

LemonDrizzle posted:

Sometimes Guy Verhofstadt is pretty good.

Guy Verhofstadt is a neoliberal piece of trash who has no right to speak on most things. He's so desperate for publicity it's beyond a loving joke.

# ¿ Apr 27, 2017 13:06

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

LemonDrizzle posted:

Juncker unloading on Trump over the Paris agreement withdrawal:

https://twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/871413337803943937

Yeah the Germans are hyper-pissed about the climate accord and are leaking hardcore. Take some time today to read this long and extremely scorching piece in Der Spiegel today, which quotes extensively from the G8 meeting in Sicily and the NATO meeting in Brussels.

quote:

Still, it is likely that none of the G-7 heads of state and government expected the primitive brutality Trump would stoop to when announcing his withdrawal from the international community. Surrounded by sycophants in the Rose Garden at the White House, he didn't just proclaim his withdrawal from the climate agreement, he sowed the seeds of international conflict. His speech was a break from centuries of Enlightenment and rationality. The president presented his political statement as a nationalist manifesto of the most imbecilic variety. It couldn't have been any worse.

quote:

His speech was packed with make-believe numbers from controversial or disproven studies. It was hypocritical and dishonest.

quote:

Merkel's aim is that of creating an alliance against Trump. If she can't convince the U.S. president, her approach will be that of trying to isolate him. In Taormina, it was six countries against one. Should Trump not reverse course, she is hoping that the G-20 in Hamburg in July will end 19:1. Whether she will be successful is unclear.

quote:

Therein lies the absurdity of Trump's histrionics. Nothing would have been easier for the U.S. than to take part pro forma in United Nations climate-related negotiations while completely ignoring climate protection measures at home -- which Trump has been doing anyway since his election.

It's a fine read, and the break between the EU and US with this president will be quite something.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2017 10:06

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Holy poo poo that PS slide if that's a true reflection.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2017 12:26

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

The Brussels' bubble has such a loving hardon for Macron it's embarrassing.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2017 16:04

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

EU response to the UK election by Politico.

quote:

EU's Juncker tells UK 'we are ready' to start Brexit talks

PRAGUE � European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told Britain on Friday the EU was ready to commence Brexit talks and he hoped the U.K. would be able to form a government as soon as possible.

�We are ready to start negotiations,� Juncker told POLITICO on the sidelines at a conference in Prague. �I hope that the British will be able to form as soon as possible a stable government. I don�t think that things now have become easier but we are ready.�

Juncker�s comments reflect consensus among EU leaders that the best way to restore stability is to get the Brexit talks under way quickly and work towards the March 2019 deadline for Britain to leave the European Union.

There is also a hint of Schadenfreude about the fate of Prime Minister Theresa May�s Conservatives, who put themselves in this dilemma by calling a referendum on membership of the EU in the first place. The Tories lost their majority in Thursday�s snap elections, which May had called in a bid to strengthen her mandate.

Separately, the EU�s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said the talks should only begin when the country is ready, pushing back against some senior European politicians who want to stick to the current timetable, under which talks with the U.K. are due to begin this month.

�#Brexit negotiations should start when UK is ready; timetable and EU positions are clear,� tweeted Barnier. �Let�s put our minds together on striking a deal.�

Senior officials in Brussels had welcomed May�s decision in April to call the elections, in the hope that it would bring clarity and predictability to the Brexit talks and give her the political strength to make decisions that might be unpopular at home. However, May�s gamble went disastrously wrong.

�The clock is running for #Brexit,� tweeted Manfred Weber, the German MEP who leads the largest bloc in the European Parliament, the center-right European People�s Party. �That means the U.K. urgently needs a government that can negotiate. The date of the start of negotiations is uncertain now.�

In a sign of evident denial still gripping May�s government, a senior British official telephoned Juncker�s chief-of-staff, Martin Selmayr, on Friday morning and suggested that London and Brussels would be able to stick with the expected timetable for the Brexit talks. That assertion left EU officials rolling their eyes.

�We don�t know when Brexit talks start. We know when they must end,� tweeted Donald Tusk, president of the European Council.

Pierre Moscovici, European commissioner for economic and financial affairs, said on French radio that although the U.K. elections �were not about a new Brexit referendum,� the results would certainly have �impact on the spirit of the negotiations.� However, the Brexit talks would have to go ahead and the Commission would stick to the March 2019 deadline for Britain leaving the EU, he said.

French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe told French radio that he now expected the Brexit talks to be �be long and complicated, we should not fool ourselves.�

That was also the view of G�nther Oettinger, the EU�s German budget commissioner, who said �mistakes were made� in May�s campaign but denied that he was enjoying the spectacle. �Schadenfreude? No, why? Leaving aside that this is a disaster for the Tories and that no one knows what comes next, we need a functioning government that can negotiate Great Britain�s exit,� he told German radio.

�The referendum still stands. No one is questioning it. The British will push ahead with the negotiations but with a weakened negotiating partner there�s a danger that the talks don�t go well for either side.�

# ¿ Jun 9, 2017 11:47

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Is there jam in the Islamo-gulags?

Asking for a friend.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2017 18:13

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Shibawanko posted:

Coalition talks between the right wing liberal parties and the greenleft party in Holland have collapsed, probably a good thing. Volkskrant is now full of Jesse Klaver character assassination pieces and - what a coincidence - reader letters urging other people to vote PvdA again next time. We need our own Corbyn.

It's past time for Roemer (Socialist Party leader) to sod off and give the job to someone who can actually do it.

E: Apparently the Green Left balked at recreating the EU-Turkey refugee repatriation deal. Good on them for that.

Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Jun 13, 2017

# ¿ Jun 13, 2017 12:13

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Tuiri posted:

Isn't the problem there that the D66 and the ChristenUnie disagree on things such as euthanasia that both seem to find pretty important? And as such D66 doesn't want form a coalition with them. I fear that at this pace we might actually end up with VVD saying 'gently caress it' and talking with the PVV again.

I think the problem is more that it'd be a +1 majority, which would be unstable as gently caress with 4 parties.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2017 16:10

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Orange Devil posted:

loving lol @ Baudet calling the VVD a left wing party re: Rotterdam municipal elections.

Baudet is absolute poison for anything. I'm more worried about him than I am about Wilders.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2017 15:53

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Surely nothing bad can ever happen now that we've turned Greece into a long-term debt colony? It'll work out fine.

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-greece-is-germanys-de-facto-colony/

quote:

Why Greece is Germany�s �de facto colony�

The debt relief Athens desperately wants is hostage to Berlin�s election politics.

BERLIN � Poor Alexis Tsipras.

For days, the Greek leader has been working the phones, trying to secure the best possible terms for his country as it enters the last mile of its seemingly endless cycle of bailouts. So far, his efforts have won him more mockery than respect � especially in Germany.

�He keeps calling the whole time, and the chancellor says again and again, �Alexis, this issue is for the finance ministers,�� German Finance Minister Wolfgang Sch�uble told an audience here on Tuesday, referring to the Greek prime minister�s attempts to win over Angela Merkel to his cause.

Eurozone finance ministers are set to decide at a meeting in Luxembourg on Thursday whether to release a more than �7 billion tranche of aid to Greece. No one doubts Athens will get the money. Sch�uble all but committed to it on Tuesday. But Tsipras wants something even more precious: debt relief.

No serious economist believes Greece will ever crawl out from under its more than �300 billion debt without significant forgiveness from its creditors. That means convincing Germany, the country to which Greece owes the most.

For much of Greece�s nearly decade-long depression, the country was hostage to its domestic politics. Now, it�s hostage to Germany�s.

Berlin, which has long opposed outright debt relief, refuses to budge. With a general election in Germany set for late September, Merkel and Sch�uble are unlikely to soften their position anytime soon. The Greek bailouts remain politically toxic in Germany, and any agreement involving debt forgiveness would be seen domestically as an admission the rescue effort had failed � and at the German taxpayers� expense.

Over the years, Germany has quietly accepted more subtle forms of forgiveness, like extending maturities on Greece�s loans and reducing the interest burden. But a straightforward cut, as demanded by the International Monetary Fund, remains out of the question. At least until after the election.

Unfortunately for Tsipras, he has very little say in the matter. One big reason he wants debt relief now is that it would allow the European Central Bank to include Greece in its bond-buying program, known as quantitative easing.

That would go a long way toward boosting investor confidence in Greece�s stability. But Greece won�t be eligible for the program as long as its debt burden isn�t deemed sustainable. And with the ECB�s program set to be wound down soon, Greece may never benefit.

Tsipras may yet try to resist a deal this week and take the matter to next week�s summit of European leaders in Brussels. That�s unlikely to make much difference.

Truth is, Europe stopped listening to Greece a long time ago.

Gone are the days when talk of �Grexit� (Brexit�s forgotten sire) triggered a nervous tick across financial traders� faces. Today, mention of Greece is more likely to elicit a glazed look, if not a yawn. With the country�s debt safely out of the hands of the credit markets and in the vaults of the ECB and Europe�s treasuries, Athens can no longer rattle the global financial system.

Tsipras didn�t understand that dynamic until after he and his leftist Syriza coalition were elected in early 2015. Syriza won by promising to reverse much of the austerity creditors had imposed on Greece over the years. Buoyed by the victory, Tsipras held a referendum on whether the government should accept bailout terms negotiated by his predecessor. Voters� response was clear: Oxi, No.

Then reality set in. Faced with the collapse of Greece�s banking system, exit from the eurozone and a future even bleaker than the present, Tsipras and his band of leftist firebrands came to heel. Yanis Varoufakis, the �rockstar� finance minister who once advocated �sticking the finger to Germany,� was forced out.

Ever since, Tsipras has largely complied with creditors� demands for further budget cuts and economic overhauls. Berlin and its partners confronted his occasional bouts of resistance with simple patience. In the end, they knew the Greek leader would have no choice but to relent.

Time and again, they were proven right. Just last month, Tsipras pushed through cuts to pensions, a move once unthinkable.

From the beginning of the crisis, part of Germany�s strategy for dealing with Greece has been not to make the process too easy. Though German officials won�t say so publicly, making an example of Greece has always been part of their plan.

And it�s worked. Across Europe, Greece has become synonymous with economic incompetence. Officials in other European capitals refer to Athens like a wayward, unrepentant relative. No one wants to be like Greece.

�Greece is de facto a colony,� Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said in an interview with POLITICO, explaining his country�s resistance to joining the euro. �We don�t want to repeat this scenario.�

Despite the challenges that reputation poses, Greece is holding out hope that it will ultimately get what it wants.

For one, the IMF has been on its side for more than a year, refusing to participate in the bailout unless there�s debt relief. Germany�s parliament made its approval of the bailout in 2015 contingent on the participation of the IMF, which lawmakers regard as a guarantor that the process won�t be skewed in Athens� favor.

That has led to a protracted standoff. Last week, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde proposed a sleight of hand that would allow the bailout to go forward. The IMF would formally join but not release any funds until after the Europeans spell out what kind of debt relief they will accept.

If that happens at all, it won�t be until after the German election. In the meantime, Tsipras has little choice but to heed the wishes of his �colonial� masters.

I read Varoufakis' book on the negotiations a few weeks a go - absolutely worth your time by the way - and this is just another repeat of another repeat. Tsipras should've used the no vote to get the hell out.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2017 09:22

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

blowfish posted:

Never mind the French and German noises about how Britain could totally just go "whoops our bad, no Brexit after all".

In so many ways, that's deeply unlikely.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2017 12:10

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Can someone in tune with French politics explain the whole MoDem resignation thing to me?

# ¿ Jun 21, 2017 12:51

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

The DPRK posted:

What do you guys think is really going on with this Google court case?

Pretty much what it says on the tin? The EU and DG COMP haven't been shy about going after mega-business, especially in the online world. The fines and verdicts delivered are pretty good in fact, and there's no surprise that they've slapped Google across the chops; it was signalled months in advance.

The question is what retaliatory fine will the US administration give an EU company.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 11:48

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

The DPRK posted:

I always thought that Google would get pulled up on tax evasion before anything like this.

That'll be a bit more difficult as at least 3 (if not more) EU countries have benefited from tax evasion strategies (NL, LUX, IR).

# ¿ Jun 28, 2017 12:22

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Pluskut Tukker posted:

Juncker is pissed at the European Parliament:

It might help if the European Parliament had some more responsibilities maybe?

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true and people should stop repeating it; if you ever want to see more/better democracy in Europe then the EP is your best bet so far. Unless we can move to the Glorious European Congress of Socialist States (I vote in favour).

Since the Lisbon Treaty, the EP is the exact equal in lawmaking terms as is council. Both branches must agree on the legislative piece before it can be enacted.

The reason why, especially in this Parliament, there seems to be so little is because it's a direct consequence and effect of Juncker's stated aim as head of the EC (the EC being the only one who can initiate new legislation). The EC is spending more time reviewing legislation and less time writing new stuff, which naturally gives Parliament less to do. However's that not something they did, or a lack of their responsibilities.

Whether or not they use that power efficiently and wisely is quite another matter, of course.

Pluskut Tukker posted:

European Parliament elections must be held under a system based on proportional-representation , unlike national elections. So where national election systems may keep out fringe candidates because they use FPTP or have a higher voting threshold, that's not possible in the EP elections. Also, because most people don't care all that much about the EP, voting for fringe/protest candidates appears like a consequence-free way to express your displeasure as a voter. And yes, political parties do not tend to send their best and brightest to the EP, since those would be of far more use in domestic politics. Going to Brussels/Strasbourg as an MEP in many countries is a good way to kill your political career (oc course, others might see it as a cushy sinecure).

There's also a lot of people who are actually quite good at their job there, prefer Brussels or are there for other reasons. There's also the fact that it's often advantageous for a party leader to send a rising star off to Brussels, where they'll be less of a threat and certainly less in the media. Same thing happens with EC Commissioners - some are sent there by rival parties in order to prevent them from running.

MiddleOne posted:

No, but I wouldn't exactly get up in arms about either. Again, anyone who expects full attendance to every parliamentary discussion is unfamiliar with how parliaments actually work.

No, you really should get up in arms about it. MEPs get around 300e per diem for turning up in the Parliament in Strasbourg and voting. The per diem registration closes around noon, so the entire chamber was full after that because they'd all cashed their checks. Part of your duty as an MEP is to sit in chamber, review and ask questions about the previous Presidency; it's a function of democracy that they must fulfill, and are actually bonus paid to do so. It was ridiculous they weren't there, and Juncker was fully right to say that had Merkel been sitting there and not Muscat, the room would have been full.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 09:34

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Dawncloack posted:

I agree with most of your post but I want to ask about this.

As far as I understand them, articles 207(3) and 218 of the Lisbon treaty essentially open the door to the Comission and the Council to approve international agreements without asking the EP. And yes, 218(6) contains a list of circumstances in which they must ask the EP for consent. Also international treaties aren't legislation.

But international treaties rank above legislation and become legislation once ratified. My understanding is that that's where CETA and TTIP are coming from, it's changing how the European Economy works without asking the EP. Am I wrong on thinking that? At the very least I would have interpreted 218(6)- (a)- iv as applying in the case of TTIP and CETA, but maybe I'm wrong on that one.

Also I would say that, since the Comission and the Council have that attribution of sometimes changing how things go through international agreement then it's kinda incorrect to say that Parliament and Council have the exact same standing, right? I'm not trying to be pedantic, it is just one attribution, but there is a difference. Am I getting it wrong? Thanks for answering if you do

On a slightly different topic: That only the executive arm can introduce legislation is, in my opinion, utter bullshit.

I think there are indeed a number of circumstances where the EP can be excluded (I can't cite chapter and verse like you can), including international treaties.

However, even CETA almost died on its arse due to the Walloons (of all people) throwing a legitimate fit. It was utterly hilarious here in Brussels to have some many people ask "what/where is Wallonia?!?". To be fair, I think most EU citizens can't find Wallonia on a map.

Generally, however, your point stands and Council and Parliament aren't exactly 100% equal. However, in my defense I was talking more about passing EU-own legislation than about trade treaties and the like.

I'm not so opposed to having the EC being the draft-writing institution though. In my experience, the EC is the far more reliable, pan-European thinking institution of the three; their remit and design is by far the most competent and European in outlook. There's a definite danger that giving parliament law-writing powers just creates an endless, endless traffic jam of nation-oriented pieces that clog up the process. Plus, like half the MEPs can't write an email without spelling errors, let alone craft complex legislation. I agree that it's a highly imperfect system, but like democracy, it's preferable to the alternatives.

Pluskut Tukker posted:

I stand corrected on the first part (frankly I din't think that part through when posting). For the second part I should clarify that I think there are plenty of good people in the Parliament, but it does seem to attract a somewhat higher percentage of idiots/profiteers than your average national parliament (thinking about people like Farage, Hannan, Eppink), but maybe I'm just more likely to notice them.

Oh yeah, for sure there's a higher percentage of clowns and fools here. It's embarrassing beyond belief that we warehouse morons like Hannan, racists like Le Pen and plain human scum like Korwin Mikke. However, like in most places, the clowns with the loudest voices who are willing to say the stupidest things are the most likely to be featured on the front pages. The 2/3rd sensible majority doesn't get so much of a look in because what they do is much more boring than yell at Van Rompuy.

Still, the percentage is too high. But that might also be an honest reflection of the composition of attitudes of Europe? (I hope not, but suspect so)

Junior G-man fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Jul 5, 2017

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 10:25

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Hambilderberglar posted:

I think this ties into low turnout for EP elections across the bloc. People like Hannan, Korwin-Mikke and Farage aren't "competing" with "sensible" politicians for a vote, the way they would do in national elections. So the people who do turn out to vote for the EP would be cranks and loudmouths who aren't any more popular than normal, they just look that way because nobody else is doing much in the way of voting.

Yeah that's probably true. I also think that most people use EP election to give their current national/regional government a kicking or send a message by picking the loudest people who (usually) stand in opposition to the government. They're being sensible in their own way, by sending signals to the national government, but the problem is that those signals actually get given flesh and form by the clown squad who resides here and fucks up the working of an efficient EP.

In terms of practice, sometimes the Lisbon Treaty just creates loving mayhem, especially on the larger pieces of legislation. The last time we had a Common Agricultural Policy reform (2013), I think the total number of proposed amendments at the first reading was 8.647 or something close to it. It was loving madness as every MEP attached at least one or multiples to protect their own patch, bung some money to local wildlfowers or what have you. Even after the AGRI committee cooked it down to 200 substantial amendments it was just craziness. I watched the procedures for 2 hours and it was just 'vote for amendment 124, pertaining to blah blah blah' followed by tired hands going up or down, followed by gavel bang followed by followed by. Christ Almighty what a carcrash. It's also (partially, Council dicked around too) why everybody hates the current CAP; 10.000 million amendments and exemptions do a bad law make.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 10:43

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Dawncloack posted:

Ah thanks to both, you make a good point, I hadn't considered that, if parliament could introduce legislation, the voices of smaller countries would be overwhelmingly drowned. In retrospect that was a glaring blind spot on my part.

I have a question, though, on the whole Wallonia/CETA thing. Apparently, the fact that it was designated a mixed agreement, so all national parliaments had to ratify it, was a decision by Juncker (pushed, apparently, by French and German socialist MEPs) as a "gesture of goodwill".

Does this mean that whenever it's a treaty that the Comission wants and some oppose, it will not be declared such and just approved via 207(3)/218?

Seems like Wallonia holding that up was due to happenstance and when TTIP 2 comes around (not that it's needed, CETA is already approved) they will simply not issue that gesture of goodwill. So I appreciate your argument but I am not sure it's solid, it seems to me that the power to pass any kind of horrible legislation through international agreement is effectively there.

I'm not a trade expert, but happy to chat about them anyway. Working in Brussels does that to you

Yeah, the CETA thing was essentially a sop to democracy (horrid phrase, horrid thinking behind it); the EC and Council saw that everybody was hating hard on trade treaties and so decided to allow national/regional governments the power of ratification. It did lead to some extraordinary scenes where Martin Schultz was personally in the offices of his nominal S&D comrades from Wallonia begging them to vote in favour. It was, especially for S&D, a disgrace.

In terms of trade treaties, the EC is the only competent authority to negotiate trade deals for the EC27/28. You can see why; if you have a common market and customs union, you can't have 28 MS setting up separate trade deals. It would lead to chaos, gameplaying and an ever sharper race to the bottom. I believe that Council does have to approve trade agreements, but even there there are some exemptions.

The Wallonia Event was essentially a happenstance if you're looking at it purely legally, but politically it's a different matter. There was and is huge (and in my opinion well-founded) opposition to TTIP, and the EC are no longer as politically tone-deaf as they used to be. Plus CETA has set an almighty precedent, and it would be very difficult to not offer ratification again. The power, as you say, is there, but wielding it is quite another matter.

Hambilderberglar posted:

External trade is an exclusive EU policy, and has been for quite some time. Juncker's decision to designate it a mixed agreement has no relationship to anything in the treaty content. There just was the sense of not wanting it to be perceived as something Brussels all rammed down our throats. If it failed, he/Brussels dodges a bullet, if it succeeds, all the people against it can't yell about perfidy in Brussels undermining national sovereignty.

Hopefully I am not wrong on any of this and Junior G Man doesn't yell at me.

Exactly right even

# ¿ Jul 5, 2017 11:20

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Orange Devil posted:

Do ratings agencies have a responsibility to not rate total loving garbagefires as AAA securities?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/14/moodys-864m-penalty-for-ratings-in-run-up-to-2008-financial-crisis

Well, Moody's paid 864m dollars for misrating, and S&P paid over 1bn, but of course there was no finding of wrong-doing or admission of guilt at the settlement.

quote:

In incriminating e-mail after incriminating e-mail, executives and analysts from these companies are caught admitting their entire business model is crooked.

"Lord help our loving scam . . . this has to be the stupidest place I have worked at," writes one Standard & Poor's executive. "As you know, I had difficulties explaining 'HOW' we got to those numbers since there is no science behind it," confesses a high-ranking S&P analyst. "If we are just going to make it up in order to rate deals, then quants [quantitative analysts] are of precious little value," complains another senior S&P man. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters," ruminates one more.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619

On the other hand, they tried an insane "well it's only an opinion and therefore protected by freedom of speech which makes us not liable for anything we say" defense that almost worked.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2017 14:11

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

There really is no point in arguing with either GaussianCopula or Geriatric Pirate. They're just utterly lost causes.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2017 14:40

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

AceOfFlames posted:

So if German cars suck, what is the alternative? I know very little about cars but my parents always swore by them, especially safety wise. What cars are "good"?

(I never owned a car and have no reason to get one for now, but might in the future)

All cars suck and unless you absolutely need one try to live your life without it.

I'm a huge fan of the blablacar app these days; there's pretty much always rides to and from the major EU cities and centres, and if you can combine it with public transport there's almost no place you can't reach except the remote countryside.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2017 11:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 20:55

Junior G-man: Sep 15, 2004; Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma

Venezuela is the boogeyman for all seasons.

# ¿ Oct 2, 2017 16:02

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

«‹›12 »