Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@alexsilent5603 Weapons to shoot down a plane at 33000 feet are relatively rare, only state militaries usually have this (and many might not even have them), exceptions maybe being rich organisations like ISIS who can both buy it and easily get it shipped to them. The rebels don't have that kind of funding and the only way to get such a system to their controlled area's is through Russia. So the assumption that they don't have such weapons is a valid one if you are certain they didn't get their hands on one of your own. And even if the rebels somehow got that kind of funding and ties and somehow can get it into their region without Russia and Ukraine knowing, it wouldn't be worth it. There are so many other usefull things that they can spend their money on.
This Russian argument is just trying to distract from the fact that it was a Russian supplied weapons system that took it down, the fact that it was a Russian system is recognized by most outside Russia, who obviously aren't going to admit they supplied a system to rebels that then was used to take down a passenger airliner.
And ofcourse money will have played a role, just like several other factors, but the possible loss in money would be nothing compared to having a passenger plane go down because you were greedy, this is not a risk you would take if you know it is a risk. At the very least you'd close the airspace above Donetsk and Luhansk and just redirect them around this region (leaving the rest of the air space open), still getting money from the passage, while also ensuring the safety of the plane. That they only closed the airspace up to a certain point clearly indicates they had no indicators that the rebels had a weapon system that could pose a danger to a plane at that altitude.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Joso997 Yes, there were active military, but they made out around +-1,5% of all signees (all the others being civilians, probably followers of FN/Le Pen), and yes I know there was another one from high ranking officials, but these mostly were older former military on pension. Generally older people hold the views shown in these letters, but it will be the younger ones having to actually execute/take part in a civil war/revolt.
At this moment the letters are a worrying thing, but nothing specific, it could just be that there is a tiny fragment with this view and most of them have already signed on to these letters. At this moment the signed on active military are around 0,5% of all France active personnel. I guess the french government (or someone else) could take a survey to see whether they represent a majority, a large minority or even just a very small minority within the military.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@________
Which institution allowed the flood of refugees?
I'd guess you can blame the declaration of the rights of men or some similar international treaty that is much larger than the EU.
* did the Middle East countries somehow forced the EU to do it or did the EU taken them willingly knowing fully the havoc it will cause?*
Neither really. The refugees came because they believed they had no choice, because they hoped for a better life. The moment they could set foot on EU ground (Greece, Italy, ...) due to international law they had to be given the possibility of asylum. Greece couldn't handle stream on their own and opened up its borders with other European countries. Then Hungary couldn't handle it and just send the refugees through. If anything is to blame it is the weak outer border of the Schengen. But you can hardly blame the EU for that, since it was a treaty created by the memberstates that said that the nations need to take care of the outer borders themselves. The EU litteraly had no jurisdiction here.
This is something many people don't seem to get, immigration or border security of the Schengen is not an EU power, but a national power, the EU has nothing to say about this. When people talk about "the EU decided this or that on immigration, border security", they are talking about the council, or in other words the national governments, not truly EU institutions.
Which institution is responsible for the consistently bad investments that led to the global financial crash?
I guess you can blame the private banks and insurers for this. Although they could do this due to the fact that US regulation was weakened under Bush and the fact that the economy and banking system is so international caused a domino effect.
was it just the US or did the EU banks collude in on the whole thing?
The 'EU' banks probably got caught in it too, just because we are talking about a global market. But I don't see why you talk about EU banks, these are private banks and banks from all over the world where caught in this net. It is exactly because of the financial crisis the EU institutions started to truly regulate/keep an eye on the banks, since the memberstates seemed to have failed in that.
Which institution is responsible for a common currency
That would be the Council, which is basically nothing more than the national governments coming together. While it is an EU institution, it is not EU driven, it is nationally driven.
that pretty much ensures countries like Greece or Italy could never economically competitive?
Greece cooked their books in order to give its people much more benefits than they could get, that already was going on before the euro, the main difference is that after that they could lend even more, because lenders looked at the viability of the eurozone as a whole, not just Greece. As for Italy, they have had currency and competitive problems even before the euro, now it just might be more visible. Italy was one of the main backers of the EU for the record.
the institution that is responsible for the prolonged and slow destruction of the Greece economy is the EU
Well, Greece was on the brink of bankruptcy due to the cooking of the books. They needed loans from EU nations and ofcourse they couldn't take the risk that Greece would just continue its former behaviour. In the end Greece itself is to blame for its problems, or more specifically former Greek governments are to blame.
Basically the institutions you have to blame are either non EU institutions, or institutions where the national governments have the power.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nexussmile8525
right now it’s not about human rights, LBTQ issues are so minor an fabricated of an issue.
Ofcourse it fucking is about human rights. The charter of fundamental rights of the European union is made legally binding in the lisbon treaty and this Hungarian law is violating parts of it. This isn't just the first issue either, it is something like the last drop. Countries like Hungary and Poland are constantly testing how far they can go, at some point you need to draw a line. And LGBTQ issues are not a minor thing, at least not in my country.
We face much more graver issues: China,Russia,Philosophical drought,supply lines, survival of the west etc
Like we can't also worry about China, Russia, etc. while also worry about the fundamental rights of the EU. It is not like we ignore or neglect NATO, which is the main thing against Russia. Neither does this somehow stop the sanctions on Russia.
Philosophical drought? Has nothing to do with this.
Survival of the west? I see the EU as essential to the 'survival of the west' and for the EU to to move forward, it needs to tackle these internal issues.
LBTQ issues is honestly the most pathetic thing to worry about.
Which just shows your color.
It’s like if Britain would focus on South African issues while the Germans where on the verge with war on Poland.
WTF? No, it isn't. Hungary is in the EU literally bordering other EU members, this isn't some far away region. This also isn't the first thing in regards to Hungary it is just one of many. This is about the essential values of the EU and its stability. If Hungary can just ignore fundamental EU values without any pushback, the EU is doomed anyway, and so are the chances for European resistance/strength to deal with those problems you mentioned.
well what I meant with the Germans was that : every reaction has the same and opposite reaction.
And? What is your solution? Ignore it? Lay back? Let Hungary walk over EU fundamental values?
Should we then not also follow the same appeasement politics in regards to Russia and China? Like that did the UK any good in the 1930's.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@slanwar
maybe if the rich nations (cough Germany cough) didn’t open the borders to immigrants from 3rd world countries
This is such a stupid and ignorant comment. The borders of the EU were already breached by the refugees, Greece couldn't handle them and send them through, then Hungary (I believe) tried to send them through too when they couldn't stop them anymore, but Austria refused to accept them. It is at this moment that Germany stepped up, they essentially just offered to take on a share of the burden, never did their stance cause the borders to become more open and neither is there statistical evidence that their stance caused an increase of refugees coming over, the tide/wave already started well before that.
and then forced them in other countries we would have UK still on board
Again stupid, the UK was one of the countries who were the least hit by the refugee crisis and also would have taken a much smaller amount under the distribution plan that was aimed at lowering the pressure on the border countries (Greece, Italy, Spain and Hungary I believe). The UK did not leave due to any effect of the refugee crisis, it was just a talking point of leave that had no merit whatsoever. Much more 3rd world citizens entered the UK through commonwealth ties than due to the UK being a member of the EU.
My guess, the EU is building an enormous bubble and soon or later will explode
Your guess based on what?
After this pandemic with millions losing their jobs
I don't know if you realize this, but overall EU country have used policies that limit the loss of jobs due to covid. The unemployment rate in the EU has only gone up by +-1% since covid and has now again started to decrease. It has gone up to around 3,5% lower than it was in 2013. There is no largescale job loss due to covid in the EU. In the US on the other hand, unemployment increased dramatically and has now gone down a lot again to levels similar to early 2014.
and seeing immigrants coming in and helped by the government
Not noticing that, there is literally no chatter about that (at least not here in Belgium). Not in politics, not in conversation, not in the news, ... Immigration was a hot topic maybe 1-2 years ago, but now? Nothing.
2
-
2
-
@alioshax7797 Germany spends 100 billion extra in the next 5-10 years, that is a yearly increase of 10-20billion. And this is after they really underfunded their army and need to get it back into good fighting shape. This isn't at all the case in France, which has maybe the most experienced and strongest army in Europe and has consistently been around the 2% of GDP target spending.
After looking into it, it seems this budget increase has more to do with just following expected GDP growth. Expected GDP for France by 2030 is around $4205B, which would come down to $84B with 2% of GDP. So yes a large increase in absolute numbers, but not actually a large increase relative to the GDP, which is what matters considering higher GDP also means higher tax income.
There are also some discrepancies. Sources in % of gdp put current French military investment at 1,95%, which would make +-$57B, but the sources speaking about the increase put it at currently $43B. There likely is just some different accounting being done, like adding costs that usually were/are kept seperate, be it to make the increase seem bigger than it really is, or to just streamline things. For example the US budget usually includes veteran care and pensions, while other countries don't do this in their official numbers, but keep it seperate as part of the welfare/pension budget etc.
The actual yearly budget for the next 6 years on average is around $66,7B (based on the $400B over 6 years), or just +-$10B higher than now. That would overall come down to a yearly increase of around 4,5% between now and 2030, from '22 to '23 France had a 7,4% increase in their military budget.
So in the end, no the French military shouldn't be getting a huge increase compared to past years, it just seems that way because absolute numbers keep up with inflation/gdp growth and France does their initial military budget planning in a series of 6 years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is difficult to say so far out. Just a few months ago Macron had a pretty nice lead in the second round with around +10%. (In fact a more recent Ipsos poll that happened after the Harris poll, put it at +12%)
A lot will depend on what happens in the next year, will covid-19 be gotten under control for example. Also while Le Pen couldn't actively campaign, Macron had the disadvantage of governing, because that is what it is in France in a presidential election: a disadvantage (at least it seems like that). The fact that Macron is still ahead after some of his problems is not bad for him, even with tight polls. Closer to the election Macron will not make as unpopular or controversial decisions and it seems that when Macron actually starts campaigning he usually grows his support. If I remember correctly after his poll numbers went down a lot with the yellow vest movement, he went on a bit of a town hall tour or something and afterwards this together with some concessions saw an increase in his numbers again.
By the election Macron could fall down a lot, but it is just as likely (if not more) that by then his lead has grown again.
And Le Pen will have the disadvantage that the rest of the parties might converge around Macron in the second round. If they openly support Macron after the first round, this might take away voters that now say in a poll that they'd vote for Le Pen and switch them to Le Pen, or get more of their voters to the polls who'd else just remain home.
A lot will adepend on turn out too, it is easy to say you'll vote for X in a polling, but going out to vote might be different.
Now, I am not French, so this is only based on my limited knowledge, if you think I am wrong, I am happy to know why.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@irham191 actually the eastern part of ukraine was predominantly russian.
Because of former soviet policies to move Russians into that region. So if these people don't wish to be part of Ukraine, they should just again be moved back to Russia imo. Anyone that hasn't had several generation living in an area should claim said area for themselves. Otherwise why wouldn't Russia just help other Russians to move into other border regions and then claim to 'defend them against aggression'?
Moreover polls showed that majority of the population might have been in favor of a special status within Ukraine (like increased autonomy), but not really independence/annexation by Russia.
And the conflict in donbass has caused about 1,6 million refugee. 600,000 comes to russia.
So in other words, the majority of the refugees weren't to Russia.
Judging from the russian history, its not the first time that the sanction caused a hardship for russian and yet we never seen them topple their government, especially in soviet era.
I'd argue that it actually was the economic difficulties that caused the soviet union to collapse in the first place. Also propaganda was much more easier to do in the past, even just by causing shear ignorance. If you never knew better, than why would you go against a government for economic reasons? These days, while there still is much propaganda, there are also more ways to get around it and people have more reference points, even due to just personal experiences of the last decades. And at the very least, a diminished economy means less government income, means less money to the military (or at the cost of a larger % of GDP).
And apperantly china had some problem with trade war and sanction, with their close ties with russia, and india abstinence in UN resolution. It should made european leader worry about their position.
Actually the expectation was that China would back up Russia. China remaining quite neutral is a very interesting development to the West, it could indicate the alliance between Russia and China is possibly more fragile then was expected and that China at this moment still very much favors stability and growing their economy vs getting into a conflict.
India remaining neutral is mostly about their trade relationship with either side and regarding the Russians mostly to do with military trade. Not at all surprising.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheJK300000
also just to point this out nearly every country in the Europe uses fptp except for the Swiss though they are pretty unique as history’s go
Completely wrong, most nations use party-list proportional representation, then you have parallel voting (party-list PR and FPTP), And France uses a two round system. Basically the only European nations that solely uses FPTP are the UK and Belarus for the first house/parliament and Poland for the upper house.
where the senate for states and parliament fling the law at each other till they all agree on it or a majority agree.
Like most systems with 2 chambers/parliaments/representative bodies. Nothing really special about it. And btw, after a certain amount of this ping-ponging (I believe 2 or 3 times), representatives of both the parliament and council sit together to try and find an agreement, if this in not possible, it is just scrapped, otherwise it goes to a last vote.
it’s more complicated than that
Ofcourse, the EU isn't an nation, but something between that and an international organisation. The complexity exists because the memberstates want to remain fully sovereign.
it’s insanely un democratic due to the sheer amount of moving parts
You don't need moving parts for to create something undemocratic or corrupt (just look at the US congress if you want to see corruption). And I don't really think it is undemocratic if the two organisations deciding in the end are constituted of elected officials. Prone to corruption, fine you can lay that at the feet of the EU. Undemocratic on the other hand is ridiculous. Can it be more democratic, sure. But so can the UK (arguably there is more room in the UK to improve democracy than in the EU).
though the Greeks were basically annexed so yea
What an ignorant statement. They needed a loan, and they got it after they fulfilled some requirements. But I guess you grant someone that owns a large part of your house continuously loans without any requirements, or let them go bankrupt which causes you to lose the house (and take huge losses in the process)?
due to the fact head of state has no power (or very little)
The head of state (the Queen) actually has ridiculous amount of power if we speak in a theoretical sense. She just doesn't use it because she knows parliament will limit it then (maybe even going further than necessary). If you meant the PM, his/her power might be limited, but since parliament has the power to do almost everything and the government and majority party are usually the same, the governing party has tremendous amount of power.
and the senate can only amend and send back to parliament.
Which basically means you just have an unnecessary senate that only delays legislation. The fact that you can basically abolish the house of lords (senate) without any real consequences doesn't make the system more democratic. At best it is a status quo. An elected senate with actual power could provide a counter-balance for a parliament that most often is controlled by the same party of the government, meaning the government can do almost everything it wants unchecked as long as it has the backing of its own party (which in most cases will be so).
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheShadowOfZama So one bad policy is reason to completely give up on the idea?
Independence is an absolute last resort and can be used as a stick.
In a unitary model, theoretically the Flemish could create a majority government on their own, in reality it should be split among ideological lines (liberals, centrists, socialists, ....) independent of language. And if wallonian politicians make too much problems with this, make it clear it either is cooperating or seperating, lets see how long they would remain in office without cooperating then.
There are problems in Wallonia, but running away from them isn't the correct answer, neither is just ignoring them. The regional split has only caused Flanders to lose power regarding Wallonian policies, allowing the problems to become worse.
2
-
2
-
2