A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

There are some crazy people who are supposedly "leaders" of the world, and it does not fare well for us mere mortals..

Very glad to be living down here at the bottom of the planet.
 
When they overrun the defences
A minor invasion put down to expenses
Will you go down to the airport lounge?
Will you accept your second-class status?
A nation of waitresses and waiters.
Will you mix their martinis? Will you stand still for it?
Or will you take to the hills?

When the Cowboys and Arabs draw down on each other at noon
In the cool, dusty air of the city board room.
Will you stand by, a passive spectator, to the market dictators?
Will you discretely withdraw, with your ear pressed to the board room door?
Or will you hear when the lion within you roars?
Will you take to the hills?
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Billy Puller said:
France is going to be interesting these next few days. Can't wait for Australia to follow suit
Click to expand...

Can't say I agree with her on everything but she's easily the most eloquent and inspirational politician I've seen in about two decades. France is at a precarious situation; I don't like the EU and the result of this election could likely define the trajectory of the country for the next two decades.

Go Marie.

Still feel we see a situation where she moves through to the second round and loses but would love to see her win.
 
pulpdriver said:
Could you clarify that position?

Or is it just going to be allusions to Hitler?
Click to expand...
No, not Hitler in particular. Europe in the 20s and 30s was rife with countries electing/appointing similarly racist, populist and anti-globalist governments arguably due to the existential crisis brought about by the results of the First World War, the breakup of the empires and the Great Depression. At least then you could argue that they had a legitimate excuse for leaning towards so-called easy solutions.

But probably more what I was referring to is the historical (and current) benefits of the EU as an institution which has done a lot to bring some level of stability and cooperation to a continent that had been devastated by two world wars. All of which is being put in jeopardy because a lot of people don't like foreigners or don't understand the importance of the EU beyond it putting restrictions on national sovereignty (to not let in foreigners). The pretense about it being about the primacy of national sovereignty has as much legitimacy as claiming the US Civil War was all about "states' rights".

If you want a recent example of why electing populist right-wingers is generally a terrible idea, you don't have to look too far currently.
 
ZoBlitz said:
No, not Hitler in particular. Europe in the 20s and 30s was rife with countries electing/appointing similarly racist, populist and anti-globalist governments arguably due to the existential crisis brought about by the results of the First World War, the breakup of the empires and the Great Depression. At least then you could argue that they had a legitimate excuse for leaning towards so-called easy solutions.

But probably more what I was referring to is the historical (and current) benefits of the EU as an institution which has done a lot to bring some level of stability and cooperation to a continent that had been devastated by two world wars. All of which is being put in jeopardy because a lot of people don't like foreigners or don't understand the importance of the EU beyond it putting restrictions on national sovereignty (to not let in foreigners). The pretense about it being about the primacy of national sovereignty has as much legitimacy as claiming the US Civil War was all about "states' rights".

If you want a recent example of why electing populist right-wingers is generally a terrible idea, you don't have to look too far currently.
Click to expand...

How exactly has the EU brought stability and co-operation to Europe in the wake of the World Wars? What "historical and current benefits" has it offered? As far as I can tell each country is as divided and self interested as ever. What has the EU done that you've concluded it has brought Europe together other than a begrudgingly agreed international trade relation weighted to benefit a small few, primarily Germany?

What exactly would France (and the departed UK) stand to gain from such a relationship?

As far as I can tell in terms of annual contributions to the EU there are no benefits and it seems to ask a lot of the wealthier countries, particularly in the area of immigration, with absolutely nothing to be benefited in the short or long term.
 
pulpdriver said:
How exactly has the EU brought stability and co-operation to Europe in the wake of the World Wars? What "historical and current benefits" has it offered? As far as I can tell each country is as divided and self interested as ever. What has the EU done that you've concluded it has brought Europe together other than a begrudgingly agreed international trade relation weighted to benefit a small few, primarily Germany?

What exactly would France (and the departed UK) stand to gain from such a relationship?

As far as I can tell in terms of annual contributions to the EU there are no benefits and it seems to ask a lot of the wealthier countries, particularly in the area of immigration, with absolutely nothing to be benefited in the short or long term.
Click to expand...
Avoided European war for 62 years. How is that for starters.

On HTC 2PS6200 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

matwt73 said:
Avoided European war for 62 years. How is that for starters.

On HTC 2PS6200 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

That's not really a good baseline.

I would've thought after the largest war in recorded history most European countries would be agreeable and do anything that avoided war for their own interests. Do you really think this couldn't have been achieved in the wake of World War 2 without a European Union?
 
pulpdriver said:
That's not really a good baseline.

I would've thought after the largest war in recorded history most European countries would be agreeable and do anything that avoided war for their own interests. Do you really think this couldn't have been achieved in the wake of World War 2 without a European Union?
Click to expand...
In circumstances where europe had not been without a war for that long for nearly a millennium it is a bloody good baseline.

After the 'war to end wars'they managed 21 years. Anything that gets you to 62+ has got to be working.

On HTC 2PS6200 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
matwt73 said:
In circumstances where europe had not been without a war for that long for nearly a millennium it is a bloody good baseline.

After the 'war to end wars'they managed 21 years. Anything that gets you to 62+ has got to be working.

On HTC 2PS6200 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Are you saying there hasn't been a war in Europe since World War 2?
 
pulpdriver said:
How exactly has the EU brought stability and co-operation to Europe in the wake of the World Wars?
Click to expand...
You may want to read a little about European Coal and Steel Community (a precursor to the EU) and its role in bringing together France and Germany as co-operative partners rather than spiteful enemies. It was very, very important and provided a basis for appeasement and a framework for peace between two countries that fought fairly constantly from the late 19th century onwards.

What "historical and current benefits" has it offered? As far as I can tell each country is as divided and self interested as ever. What has the EU done that you've concluded it has brought Europe together other than a begrudgingly agreed international trade relation weighted to benefit a small few, primarily Germany?

What exactly would France (and the departed UK) stand to gain from such a relationship?

As far as I can tell in terms of annual contributions to the EU there are no benefits and it seems to ask a lot of the wealthier countries, particularly in the area of immigration, with absolutely nothing to be benefited in the short or long term.
Click to expand...
As I said, political stability but also: free trade and reduction of tariffs and customs (better for the economy and consumers), free people movement (also good for the economy in terms of employment and tourism), improved security (better integration and sharing of information between states), increased legal rights...

The problem of course is that it's much more popular domestically for politicians to rip into the EU then to actually explain the benefits. You just have to watch some of the Yes, Minister episodes in the 80s to see that not a lot has changed.

I would've thought after the largest war in recorded history most European countries would be agreeable and do anything that avoided war for their own interests. Do you really think this couldn't have been achieved in the wake of World War 2 without a European Union?
Click to expand...
Funnily enough you would have thought most European countries would have thought the same after the First World War (known as "The War to End All Wars"), wouldn't you?

I understand skepticism in the benefits of the EU but to deny that there are any benefits at all is just misinformed, in my view.
 
N
pulpdriver said:
Are you saying there hasn't been a war in Europe since World War 2?
Click to expand...
Not between the member states and not between two of the biggest dogs in the fight, France and Germany, who have been, in one form or another, at each other's throats since the break up of the Carolingian Empire in 814 AD.
The EU was a great experiment in stability and mutual cooperation and while it is mired in bureaucracy and is dominated by the two aforementioned dogs I do believe it was a positive thing.
 
Davemonkey said:
N

Not between the member states and not between two of the biggest dogs in the fight, France and Germany, who have been, in one form or another, at each other's throats since the break up of the Carolingian Empire in 814 AD.
The EU was a great experiment in stability and mutual cooperation and while it is mired in bureaucracy and is dominated by the two aforementioned dogs I do believe it was a positive thing.
Click to expand...

Great summary. I have no objection to the EU in theory, in fact it could have unprecedented benefits for not only Europe but the whole world, but in practice it's been bogged down by bureaucratic bullshit and seems to be horribly slanted towards the benefit of a a few.
 
ZoBlitz said:
You may want to read a little about European Coal and Steel Community (a precursor to the EU) and its role in bringing together France and Germany as co-operative partners rather than spiteful enemies. It was very, very important and provided a basis for appeasement and a framework for peace between two countries that fought fairly constantly from the late 19th century onwards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know about the Paris treaty but EU was formed three decades after. I don't know if it's formation contributed to the peace between the big two and more than the momentum and relations that had already been built.

ZoBlitz said:
As I said, political stability but also: free trade and reduction of tariffs and customs (better for the economy and consumers), free people movement (also good for the economy in terms of employment and tourism), improved security (better integration and sharing of information between states), increased legal rights...
Click to expand...

EU might contribute to political stability but take it away and I don't see it destabilising. Trade relations and treaties can exist without a bureaucracy overseeing everything. Dunno if consumers really benefit. The economy perhaps from a pure numbers standpoint but the CAP seems like something designed to benefit the big boys and screw over the small guy. Legal rights undoubtedly better due to the humanitarian prerequisites of joining the EU. Can't argue with that and would be dumb to try. Whether security has been improved is debatable.

ZoBlitz said:
The problem of course is that it's much more popular domestically for politicians to rip into the EU then to actually explain the benefits. You just have to watch some of the Yes, Minister episodes in the 80s to see that not a lot has changed.
Click to expand...

I'll concede it's an easy target for a politician looking for votes but it really seems like a bloated mess of bureaucratic red tape and policies designed to benefit Germany that really doesn't need to be there.

ZoBlitz said:
Funnily enough you would have thought most European countries would have thought the same after the First World War (known as "The War to End All Wars"), wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Touche

ZoBlitz said:
I understand skepticism in the benefits of the EU but to deny that there are any benefits at all is just misinformed, in my view.
Click to expand...

Whilst there are certainly some benefits I just feel it's an institution weighted to benefit the big guys and ultimately doesn't really need to be there to ensure peace and prosperity in Europe.
 
TheBrownDog said:
There will always be bureaucracy. It's an unavoidable end game of democracies. Without the EU there would arguably be more. Just less centralised.
Click to expand...

I guess. Just seems like a loaded hand with the EU and I don't think it offers enough benefits to justify its existence. Could be arguably less bureaucracy?
 
So just to make sure I understand this right...Julie Bishop says North Korea's nukes are a threat to Australia.

North Korea find this comment so wrong and offensive, and in order to prove her wrong... they threaten to nuke us...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
990
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top