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)

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Gotta love the juxtaposition of high-minded �values� with �8M out of 38M people voted for a fascist party, let�s jettison the entire country, that�ll help LGBTQ issues�

Consider that being a member of the EU, with whatever pressure there is on these issues helps the folks inside their country to push back against the fascist dipshits. Ejecting Poland would be the best thing that could happen to PiS ideologically, and cement their power base.

# ¿ Jul 23, 2021 13:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 17:23

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

DarkCrawler posted:

Unless there are actual voter suppression efforts, it just seems to me that enough people are not voting or they have majority support. PiS is not the only party in the coalition, they have plenty of help.

I'm not interested in funding the efforts and personal pockets of fascists. I'll welcome any LGBTQ immigrants (or refugees post hypothetical Pexit) but the idea that we'll just have to keep giving authoritarians money or things get worse for the people they persecute doesn't sound any better here then it does with Saudi-Arabia. If staying in the EU actually helps these people, great, but the whole problem seems to be that Poland and Hungary don't give a gently caress about EU and the fascists remain popular, so...

Voter suppression or not, PiS has the votes of only 25% of the in-country population (seeing as there is a statistically significant diaspora, too). Making sweeping generalizations that �Poland doesn�t give a gently caress about EU� based off that is at best disingenuous and oversimplified.

Sounds like you need to decide whether you�d like to prioritize spite & money, or human rights. Nobody likes to see money go to fascists, but ultimately, it�s just money. Kicking PL out of the EU saves money in the short term; it�s not clear to me that it�ll save money in the long term, but it is pretty clear to me that human lives and rights will suffer for it.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2021 14:43

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Knightsoul posted:

This war started in 2008 at the bucharest convention when NATO trespassed the red line declaring Ukraine and Georgia as next members.
Even Merkel and Sarkozy were against that decision: they knew on the long run it would have meant big troubles with the russians.
But in the end, as always, U.S. administration imposed its will on the others and took the chance (once again) to harrass Russia.

Because god forbid Eastern European countries feel threatened by hundreds of years of Russian aggression and occupation, and try to join an organization that exists explicitly as defense against her.

But no, we must allow Russia to bully her neighbors, or else there�s nobody to blame but us - certainly not Russia!

# ¿ Feb 28, 2022 13:21

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Toplowtech posted:

They did invade a country after repeatably telling us they would invade if we were dumb enough to continue our NATO bullshit. I guess we are safe from blame. gently caress, the US actually are the greatest negotiator ever: they even spend weeks telling everyone that the Russian were going to attack(believe us please!!!) while doing jack loving poo poo to protect the population. Honestly, sure Putin is the villain but everyone else is a loving idiot. Can we stop being loving idiot?

I�m missing the explanation for why anyone would give a flying gently caress about what Putin wants? �Oh no, Putin is angry about not being able to bully yet another sovereign country, let�s acquiesce to his whims�

Me threatening you with a good time unless you comply with my wishes doesn�t make me punching you in the face for not complying less of a crime.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2022 15:56

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Toplowtech posted:

WAAAAAAA America so tough. Told insane hostage taker Vladmir to fuckoff. Now Ukraine is on the floor, its head blown off and Vladimir gonna get shot. Hope he doesn't shot someone else while the Biden administration does its best not to appear weak.

I�m sure you have a much better course of action to suggest

# ¿ Feb 28, 2022 16:31

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

oscarthewilde posted:

Every state has red lines and it is either willfully ignorant or just plain naive to believe that crossing such a red line wouldn't have consequences. This is not some attempt justify why putin/russia decided on this aggressive and destructive course of action, but purely an attempt to understand why. If you back your geopolitical opponent into a corner, and leave no room for a negations or a way out, they will at some point decide to escalate. This is difficult, if not impossible to understand according to the liberal mindset that equivocates the moral right with the epistemic true, but that's what happened the last few months. The US and NATO used Ukraine as useful pawn in their struggle with Russia and now untold Ukrainians and Russians are suffering.

The why is clear: Putin was huffing his own farts as dictators are wont to do, and decided that this was his best chance to make history and prevent Ukraine from falling into the sphere of Western influence.

Doesn�t mean there was a better path. It also doesn�t mean Ukraine did not have agency. Ultimately, there�s no dealing with a bully, except to give them a bloody nose when they attack.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2022 17:42

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

oscarthewilde posted:

if a big invasion in Europe were a red line, the US shouldn't have been pushing for one. The responsibility for the actual invasion lies entirely with Putin, but the US and NATO could've chosen a different path.

Which path could they have chosen that also takes the agency of the EEU countries into account?

# ¿ Feb 28, 2022 17:56

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Truga posted:

NATO expanded eastward against russia's specific wishes, it *really* doesn't get more specific than that. you can argue that it's stupid that russian leaders are "inconvenienced" over that, but they feel threatened by NATO

meanwhile policy makers have known they feel that way since the 90s and didn't give a poo poo, and now we're in poo poo because nobody gave a poo poo about anything except expanding NATO to sell more NATO compliant weapons to new NATO members, and now we're about to enter cold war 2, and same people responsible for the bullshit get to make even more money selling even more weapons

Really getting sick of of the arrogant stance purporting that NATO and the US had all the agency. EEU countries *wanted* to be part of NATO more than anything else, even the EU. Why? I dunno, maybe because of a few decades of imposed communism and occupation in the 20th century, and a few hundred years of Russian aggression and occupation before that?

The general EEU stance relative to Russia can be summarized with �she can go and suck my dick�. And that�s for a whole bunch of reasons

# ¿ Mar 1, 2022 17:25

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Truga posted:

NATO could have easily said "actually no" and we 100% wouldn't be in cold war 2 in europe right now, so yes, it had all the agency.

of loving course ex-soviet countries wanted to join with putin next door who wouldn't? doesn't mean nato had to accept them knowing full well what it's leading to. them defence contracts tho

1) That NATO could have said �no� does not mean it had all the agency. Y�all are drawing a picture where NATO coerced EEU countries to join, due to some overarching conspiracy.
That�s not the case: EEU countries had a choice

2) How deep into alternate bullshit history would you like to go? If EEU countries had not joined NATO, they would have mutual defense pacts as members of the EU - and poor, poor Putin would still have the same casus belli according to your logic.

So what, EEU countries had a� what, loving moral or geopolitical duty to remain backwater shitholes, just in case Russia turns belligerent again?

3) Even if EEU countries remained unaligned backwaters, what leads you to assume Russia would not have taken them over, as they did with Belarus?

Bottom line, I don�t see an argument for a scenario that does not end up with Russia being what they always have been: belligerent cunts. Looks like the only failure was to not allow the Ukraine to slip under one of the protective umbrellas, as that seems the only way to keep Russia out of your poo poo.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2022 18:03

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Truga posted:

i've no evidence to support russia wouldn't try this, but i'm of the opinion that currently, belarus is in a much better position than ukraine, and ukraine was trying to join EU/NATO while belarus wasn't

that's not me endorsing russia, or saying there aren't big problems with the belorussian situation, just that trying to walk a tightrope between two great powers/empires is probably better than a just blindly believing one side they'll let you into their block *any day now* while the other keeps screaming at you that this is a bad loving idea. and that was before the whole invasion thing started

You mean being a puppet state that�s de facto been absorbed into Greater Russia and that�s run as a dictatorship is better? I�m not sure even the Ukrainians would agree, or else they would no be fighting to keep Ukraine indpendent.

Never mind that�s not the relevant comparison: it�s whether Belarus is in a better position than the other EEU countries. Because if not, it suggests yet again that the only mistake was not to make Ukraine part of NATO or a EU candidate.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2022 18:13

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Antifa Poltergeist posted:

It's cool how we've all memory holed Libya.

NATO is a imperialist tool, to enforce empire.you know how we know this?during the cold war there was a total of 0 (zero) military engagements by nato.
After the cold war?
a loving lot.
Now, you maybe saying "AP, those are good things that NATO did." And I'm going"buddy, the gently caress is a defense alliance doing bombing Libya and training the afghan army to such resounding success?"
The only thing Putin has against NATO it's that it's doing the empirelasing for the other side.
We've learned nothing, continue to learn nothing, and the same poo poo keeps happening.

Amazingly, NATO can be both an imperialist tool, and a defense organization that EEU countries want to join.

Or, really pragmatically: a country may have a preference which imperialist sphere of influence they want to belog to. Turns out, if you�re a proper member of one, chances are you�re not going to be molested by the other.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2022 21:38

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

an example of this:

https://english.radio.cz/chief-prosecutor-warns-against-public-support-russian-aggression-8743179

this is how restrictions on freedom of speech are typically handled. i personally think that this is going too far, but it's presumably appealable to the ECHR if it actually ends up having legal consequences and you get to argue your case according to the law. it is not, notably, ursula von der leyen deciding that some czech is out of order and that their blog has to be taken down or w/e

Everything is appealable. It�s not like Ursula is some kind of extra-legal force majeure.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2022 20:57

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

look you can't just say "THIS is the level at which shutting down press institutions doesn't constitute a restrictive attitude to free speech", that is nonsense which allows you to, effectively, say "we are good and they are bad" which is exactly what orange devil was criticising

we *do* criticise foreign countries for this sort of behaviour. there's no real principle at play here, this is just the EU deciding to shut down an inconvenient media outlet controlled by interests deemed hostile. that is not unheard of and it may very well be the right course of action but it seems to have real friction with the statement that the EU has a deep, institutional commitment to free speech

Free speech has well-accepted limitations, certainly in Europe, and even in the US: defamation, conspiracy, hate speech, fraud, etc.

It�s not unreasonable nor devoid of a rational basis to shut down propaganda outlets supporting an entity while imposing sanctions on the same entity.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2022 22:46

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

yes, fine, but then you're putting geopolitics above your deep institutional commitment to free speech. as i've noted before i think that can be acceptable, but it's placing us in the same general area of behaviour as actions which our own state media has been happy to criticise.

like, i'm not arguing the morality or the appropriateness of the reaction here, i've got a pretty narrow point which i made and to which people objected, and which i'm now defending.

Which of these is �geopolitics� and not commonplace jurisprudence: defamation, conspiracy, hate speech, or fraud?

There is absolutely no contradiction between being deeply committed to the principle of free speech, while recognizing and practicing its limitations. It�s codified into every current body of western law.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2022 01:42

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

the executive shutting down an unwelcome foreign news source cannot be reasonably said to fall under any of those categories because the way you typically prove such things is by prosecution in a court of law

the procedural part here is an important part of my argumentation. had RT been dodging their taxes, broken some content-directing law (not that these aren't often problematic re: freedom of the press but in principle) or failed to file for some kind of licence it would be a very different situation

Free speech by a propaganda entity in the service of a hostile foreign power can be limited easily in the interest of �public safety�.

And you have the process backwards. The executive can absolutely shut down an unwelcome foreign news source in the interest of public safety as rational basis. The recourse is for the news source to sue for an injunction as well as subsequent damages. Should the executive have acted without a legal basis, or overstepped, the injunction will be granted, and the damages will be awarded.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2022 02:37

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

right so the sort of thing we complain about when the russians or the chinese, do it

Except for the minor detail that you won�t be able to cite a single instance that�s remotely comparable, you mean?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2022 02:59

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

is propaganda illegal in the EU? that's a big problem free-speech wise, a ton of political speech is propaganda

is it specifically russian propaganda? where's the law or norm stating this? should we be shutting down Fox News for doing psycho yankee propaganda?

do you seriously not see how it's problematic, from a free speech perspective, to let ursula von der leyen decide these things?

Again. No. Just because you keep insisting the Executive should follow a certain process that you put on a pedestal as the �only way things can be done� does not mean other processes are not valid and legal.
There is recourse for RT to fight Ursula�s overreach; injunctions can be granted within a matter of days if not hours if the alternative is irreparable harm.

The Executive acting first based on a set of powers delegated to it is a process that�s codified and aligned with the values of free speech, as well as any other value we hold dear. The judiciary exists as a means to achieve recourse in that case.
As long as Ursula can demonstrate a rational basis for her actions and doesn�t ignore injunctions to the contrary, she�s acting in line with the system that we set up to protect our values.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2022 13:32

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

legal recourse is not the same thing as having something administered by the legal system in the first place. that czech law banning pro-russian sentiment is still problematic in free speech terms even if it would hopefully be overturned upon appeal to the ECHR: such things take years and a great deal of money to fight and constitute meaningful censorship *even if they're eventually overturned*. i honestly haven't been able to find the specific legal justification for banning the russian outlets - the only justification i can find is borrel saying:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/eu-rolls-out-new-sanctions-banning-rt-and-sputnik/

"�Systematic information manipulation and disinformation by the Kremlin is applied as an operational tool in its assault on Ukraine. It is also a significant and direct threat to the Union�s public order and security�

which is a pretty vague assertion.

i am also not alone in reacting to the freedom of speech aspect of this:

https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-rt-sputnik-illegal-europe/

The European Parliament "is kept in the dark. So far we have received no official information nor have we been asked to participate,� said German center-left MEP Tiemo W�lken. �We need to have a serious debate about whether fundamental rights (e.g. media freedom) should be interpreted differently in war times.�

so the executive is doing something that the parliament didn't see coming and which at least some parliamentarians don't think they've endorsed.

An EP complaining about the executive is proof that the system works and that there is, in fact, a deep commitment to free speech in our polity. Otherwise, you would not have tensions between the executive and the legislative, one would parrot the other, as is the case in e.g. Russia and China.

And again: there are different courses of action. Some involve the judiciary branch ex ante, some involve it ex post. As long as there is a rational basis for the executive to act based on the powers that have been delegated, and said action is subject to judicial review and subsequent legislative action where necessary, the system works.

Note, all of the above are precisely why Ursula shutting down the information outlet of a hostile foreign power is not �the same� as us complaining about Russia or China when they shut down information sources: when they do it, there are no checks and balances, and no recourse, on top of the �rational basis� being subjectively and objectively more questionable.

A �deep commitment to free speech� does not mean every member of every branch of government constantly supports maximum free speech for everyone, regardless of impact on the polity. It means free speech is anchored and upheld as a core right, with the legislative codifying limits where deemed appropriate, the executive acting where required, and the judiciary reviewing conflicts where necessary.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2022 19:39

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

i would argue that a system in which the executive can unilaterally shut down news outlets without any kind of state of exception is, in itself, not a system which has a deep commitment to free speech.

the european parliament being sidelined (again) does not indicate any systemic strength on the issue and, in fact, points towards another deeply troubling factor of empowering the european executive with this kind of thing, namely that executive's very suspect democratic mandate, but that's another issue. it is bonkers to assert that parliamentarians saying they've been totally sidelined on what is an important point of principle shows the depth of the institution's commitment to that principle.

The executive executes and acts ahead of the legislature. The legislature considers, delegates and legislates. That�s how the system is intended to work. That has nothing to do with �unilateral executive action� because executive action is intended to be unilateral at the moment in time. It also has nothing to do with �sidelining parliament�, because parliament is not supposed to act at the speed of the executive.

But ultimately, you always come back to �But Ursula was mean to RT, so the entire EU is hypocritical and not committed to free speech� without regard for any one the above workings. If that�s your worldview, you�re entitled to your opinion.

V. Illych L. posted:

russia is not at war with the EU. russia has no formal status as a hostile state to the EU. formally, EU-russian relations are normal. this is an important point; had there been open war between the institutions, this sort of thing would be unremarkable but [i]there isn't[i]

The EU has sanctioned the Russian economy to within an inch of it�s life, and caused irreparable damage. France�s politicians speak of �total economic war�. The EU airspace is closed to Russian planes. Companies in certain sectors are forbidden from doing business with Russian companies. NATO forces are being mobilized and positioned along the border to Russia / Belarus / Ukraine. Russian central bank assets have effectively been seized.

Which of the above constitutes �normal� relations?

# ¿ Mar 3, 2022 22:57

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

so are you saying that criticising russia on free speech grounds for banning deutsche welle was also wrong or what

Was there recourse in Russia to the ban?

As to your other points, I don�t really see a basis of discussion if you�re stating with a straight face that EU-Russia relations are �normal� because there is no formal declaration of war; just destruction inflicted on Russia on par with a bombing campaign, but apparently, that�s �normal� as long as some formalities aren�t met.

In fact, it feel like all your positions are based on formalities.
The executive bans a press outlet, without formal approval by the judiciary? That�s a fundamental attack on the institution of free speech and demonstrates that the entire EU is a farce - regardless of whether is normal executorial practice.
Presumably, if the judiciary had approved it without an explicit law, it would be proof of disregard of free speech as well. And if the legislative passed an explicit law, I suppose the EU would be caught red-handed in making GBS threads all over free speech.

That�s a position you can take, but it�s also fundamentalist and not debatable.

Meanwhile in reality, if you don�t like the RT ban, and assuming you�re an EU citizen: sue.
The fact that you can, and that there will be no state repercussions, are all that�s needed to demonstrate the difference between the commitment to free speech in the EU vs Russia or China.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2022 00:41

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

V. Illych L. posted:

yes i'm arguing formally. that is in part because this is D&D and i'm arguing against the current extremely pro-EU vogue, which will see you shouted down if you don't stay very close to formal principles. i will admit that i appreciate your posts, since you tend to try and engage with what my actual point is instead of making up something and charging at that

"better than russia" does not a deep, institutional commitment to free speech make. russia is a country without free speech in any reasonable interpretation, and so is china. poland is more of a border case: their actions in recent years do not seem to show much commitment to freedom of speech, but i wouldn't say that it's absent there either.

if the legislature passed a law saying something like "if you get caught by this media review body doing egregious falsehoods X times you fall under review and subject to various penalties", that might be a reasonable way of shutting down media outlets without abandoning a deep, institutional commitment to free speech - you'd have to see how it played out in practice, i suppose, it certainly couldn't have the executive sitting in both the review and penalty boards. i have given other examples of free speech restrictions that i think are compatible with such a commitment - holocaust denial in germany being the standout example. everybody in germany knows you're not allowed to do that, and why, and are allowed to protest and potentially change it. it is not enforced by the chancellorly deciding that someone's a holocaust denial and that their blog must be taken down. i don't think that this is an especially onerous test.

legal recourse is a nice thing, but it is not an effective counteraction for censorship, because it's an onerous cost and a long process. many media outlets (indeed, i would think most without actual government backing) would keel over by the time the appeal got processed. similar to how that czech law making open pro-russian sentiment illegal seems to be problematic (though here it's on substantial rather than formal terms and so qualitatively different from my RT/sputnik point; i do not think you can reasonably ban that kind of utterance and be within the bounds of free speech - though this, again, a different argument) even though it's appealable to the ECHR and almost certainly would be overturned; nobody wants to spend years fighting a case like that.

if you assume that i'm arguing in bad faith, then i don't see why you're bothering to reply. it'd be easier to just state that i'm in bad faith and then let the discussion die. i can assure you that i'm not in bad faith fwiw

I don�t think you�re arguing in bad faith per se; I think you�re arguing in a manner that�s exceedingly formalistic - and yes, ultimately not terribly fecund in terms of debate.

You�re also oversimplifying or mischaracterizing to some degree. Example: injunctions are neither costly to get, nor do they take a long time. They are granted based on �likelihood of success� if the alternative outcome is �irreparable damage�, for the formal case to play out subsequently.
In other words, if RT were to sue for injunctive relief today, they should have relief within days - or not, if they are unlikely to succeed.

Hence my insistence that recourse does, in fact, constitute a protection of free speech. Especially in a non-adversarial system like the one in the EU, where the party that�s losing has to bear all the costs of the proceedings.
And hence also my disagreement that only ex ante judicial involvement constitutes �proper� due process. It�s a reductive position that�s simply not reflective of reality.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2022 01:33

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

How do you get �life satisfaction� if you�re sick?

# ¿ Mar 28, 2022 00:54

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

BlankSystemDaemon posted:

It being subjective also means that it's relative.

I've not got the best situation health-wise, because of chronic fatigue and pain from cancer therapies due to cancer that's now in remission, and a recent COVID-19 infection leading to some long side effects, but overall I'd still say that of all the things that OECD measure, life satisfaction is probably still the most important thing.

And what would your life satisfaction be without healthcare, on an extensive waiting list for treatment, or in bankruptcy due to medical bills?

# ¿ Mar 28, 2022 17:51

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Antigravitas posted:

GDP is a measure of how much money is sloshing around. That measure does not actually tell you how the people are doing, it tells you how the money is doing. Money is doing, by all accounts, really well in the USA.

GDP also includes all the activity necessary to make large parts of the US livable, and the constant rebuilding after natural disasters.

Combine that with the US blowing 18% of GDP on healthcare, or about 2x the EU average, as well as 3% of GDP on defense, 10-15% of US GDP per capita is worthless in a comparison vs the EU.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2023 05:13

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

His Divine Shadow posted:

The euro likely had a hand in cheap loans being so abundant up until 2007, with it's low interest rates. Though not solely responsible.

It absolutely did; but then also didn�t Spain have an absolutely massive construction boom that was fueled by German savings being funneled into that low interest credit? My employer shifted the order consolidation center for our construction-adjacent product to Spain of all places, because it burned through more units than the rest of Europe combined.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2024 13:24

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

mobby_6kl posted:

That seems like an assertion that the adoption of Euro did make it worse:

That's not really a question that I think can be definitely answered without doing some actual research and serious stats but on the surface I'm not seeing anything to suggest that it did.

You can see that some of the least affordable places are outside the Eurozone: Poland, Czech Republic, Croata are all some of the worst in Europe and less affordable than Spain, for example.

Notably, e.g. PL also not even part of the Eurozone.

Ireland is the main place I can think of that has joined the Euro and has incredibly unaffordable housing (where people want to live, housing in the rural parts is dirt cheap), despite having a massive boom in the early 2000s.

But Ireland�s population is also almost 40% higher than in 2000, so it�s hard to see how that wouldn�t put pressure on housing.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2024 15:54

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Tesseraction posted:

Ireland's population may be growing but it's still down over a million from what it was before the Great Famine. The unaffordability is primarily driven by location and speculation, rather than raw number of butts needing beds.

mobby_6kl posted:

The famine was like 180 years ago I kind of doubt there's just usable surplus housing still standing around from back then. Especially in places where people want to be, i.e., Dublin.

A large chunk of housing in the areas most affected by the famine was �Fourth class�; 40% of rural Irish lived in those.

�Fourth Class comprising all Mud cabins having only one room; the third, a better description of cottage, still built of mud, but varying from two to four rooms with windows; the second, a good farm-house or, in towns, a house in a small street having from five to nine rooms with windows; and the first, all houses a better description than the preceding ones.�

What was Fourth class housing, you ask? Hovels, basically. Little better than holes in the ground in a lot of cases:

�The least expensive, and the most common form of construction, was the sod-wall cabin. This consisted simply of large grassy lumps cut from the earth. A foundation of loose stones was laid, and the trimmed sods were piled up to form the wall. The resultant walls were weak and very apt to subside, even when supported by timber uprights. Sometimes the sods were mortared together with clay. Window and door openings were created simply by hacking out a suitable space once the building was complete. The roof was generally supported by corner posts. A sod-wall house could be erected in a day.�

Just to put things into perspective, my wife�s family is from the Midlands and she grew up in a house that was classified as �Second class� back in 1841. It�s nigh unlivable by today�s standards. Very little of the mid-1840s housing stock was of First or Second class to begin with.

# ¿ Jan 17, 2024 18:55

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Rappaport posted:

Doesn't that boil down to the EU being a NATO plot? I am interested in hearing the details for sure, but denying agency for all Western European actors for decades seems extreme.

It also doesn�t explain why or how Germany can unilaterally enforce austerity across Europe in this century. It�s not like Germany controls the votes� anywhere, really. Not the EP, not the EC, not the ECB.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2024 22:01

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

A Buttery Pastry posted:

As I recall, France was kind of fence-sitting during the whole crisis, but ended up following the German lead. Had Germany gone the other way and pushed for actually good policies, France would have followed suit, and suddenly you would have had the four largest states in Europe all pulling in the same direction. While there would still be a lot of Northern European shitheads and Eastern Europeans who would have to be convinced that it was in everybody's interest to reform, it would be a lot harder for them to push the narrative and politics without Germany. You don't need to represent a majority directly, if you economic and political influence extends far beyond your borders.

And where does this influence stem from? Because it certainly isn�t military force projection. If it�s from Germany contributing 25% of the EU budget, well then it�s really all the other states not wanting to jeopardize that. If it�s some other threat, I�d like to see it.

Germany doesn�t have the power to force anything through the EP, EC, or ECB, without the support of other EU member states.

Back during the financial crisis, my memory suggests that most of Northern Europe was pretty aligned on the austerity stance. Some of that is history (DE) or culture (NL), some of it was blatant racism how swarthy Southern Europeans were lazy and had lived beyond their means.
But it wasn�t a unilateral German plan, never mind a master plan.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2024 15:21

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

A Buttery Pastry posted:

This is called financial abuse.

I wouldn�t go that far. Germany agreed to pay in that share, nobody�s been forcing it in at least a few decades.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2024 20:32

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The financial abuser is Germany.

By� paying in more than it should by virtually any metric (other than implied guilt), and other countries not wanting the gravy train to stop?

# ¿ Jan 21, 2024 17:18

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Blut posted:

The issue most people have with German financial policy is their efforts to force unneccessarily harsh austerity measures on other parts of Europe because of the schwarz nulle fetish.

Except Germany doesn�t have the power to enforce austerity unilaterally. The reason austerity was enforced in the wake of 2008 is because of a Northern consensus, yet nobody complains about any of the smaller countries. Somehow, it�s Germany waving a magic wand to force austerity upon everyone.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Financial abuse is using your your control of the purse strings to control your domestic partner.

The EU is not a romantic polycule. It�s a series of treaties between sovereign nations pursuing national and regional interests. Never mind that the other countries that were calling for austerity measures weren�t being �threatened� by Germany.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2024 19:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 17:23

morothar: Dec 21, 2005

Rust Martialis posted:

https://youtu.be/OeC1yAaWG34?si=lBhLnb-1co3okCJ-

In fairness, you can understand both sides of that even if you grew up in eg the Niederrhein in Germany.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2024 19:15

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