|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
A prominent Kosovo Serb politician, Oliver Ivanovic, has been shot dead outside his party offices in the Serb-run north of Mitrovica.
Ivanovic, seen as a moderate Kosovo Serb leader, was shot four times in the chest and died later in hospital, his lawyer Nebojsa Vlajic said.
Serbian government negotiators walked out of EU-mediated talks with Kosovo Albanians in Brussels after the news.
Kosovo remains ethnically divided since unilaterally splitting from Serbia.
Mitrovica - in northern Kosovo - is divided, with the south run by Kosovo Albanians.
Ivanovic, 64, headed a Kosovo Serb party called Freedom, Democracy, Justice. He had played a leading role in negotiations with Nato and the EU.
He was facing a retrial for alleged war crimes against ethnic Albanians committed in 1999.
In January 2016, EU judges in Kosovo sentenced him to nine years, but the verdict was overturned by an appeals court a year later.
Ivanovic had denied all charges.
"This is a criminal and terrorist act that must be and will be punished," Serbian delegate Marko Djuric said, announcing his move to walk out of the Brussels talks.
The Serbian government is holding an extraordinary security meeting in Belgrade.
Ivanovic rose to prominence in Kosovo Serb politics during the territory's conflict in 1999, when Serb forces battled Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) guerrillas and committed war crimes against ethnic Albanian civilians.
A Nato air campaign forced Serbia to pull its troops out, but an EU law and order team remains in Kosovo.
Kosovo declared independence in 2008. It has been recognised by 115 countries, but not by Serbia and its ally, Russia.
Source
|
Foreign politics of our new government explained in one picture:
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
|
On January 17 2018 00:12 Big J wrote:Foreign politics of our new government explained in one picture: + Show Spoiler + Hahaha
By the way, is Austria a net contributor or does it receive more money from the EU than it gives?
|
On January 17 2018 01:25 TheDwf wrote:Hahaha By the way, is Austria a net contributor or does it receive more money from the EU than it gives?
It's about a billion euro in net contributions as far as I know, kind of the same share of GNI as France, Denmark, UK and Italy pay and half of the Netherlands' share according to the graphic in this article:
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century
One of the signature projects of the new government is changing direct child funding to something calculated from the living costs of where the child lives. So that people from the east who work here send less money from austria - and people who have children going to expensive schools in switzerland or luxemburg get more money. It has hardly any budgetary consequences and noone knows whether this can even go through due to EU regulations, but "fuck those Tschuschn and the EU with them we have paid enough for them". (Tschusch = bad language for yugoslavian, used for all eastern europeans)
|
Good start Austria. I think the EU through its regs has gotten too big for its britches.
|
On January 16 2018 05:20 TheDwf wrote: Some poll about Macron's action:
Would you say that, so far, Macron's results are:
Negative: 37% Positive: 35% Too early to judge: 21% No opinion: 7%
Would you say that his action corresponds to his promises:
Yes: 55% No: 31% No opinion: 14%
How do you consider the government's policy:
Rather left: 7% Rather centre: 27% Rather right: 39% No opinion: 27%
Those are pretty good polls to be honest. Isnt france always like split in halve? Then this is kinda the best he can hope for.
|
2774 Posts
On January 17 2018 09:37 Danglars wrote: Good start Austria. I think the EU through its regs has gotten too big for its britches. For example?
|
He has no examples. Its basically Brexit talk "Danglars Edition".
Everything bad is because of the EU. Everything good is because of Country XYZ itself. EU too big yadada.
|
On January 17 2018 10:58 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 05:20 TheDwf wrote: Some poll about Macron's action:
Would you say that, so far, Macron's results are:
Negative: 37% Positive: 35% Too early to judge: 21% No opinion: 7%
Would you say that his action corresponds to his promises:
Yes: 55% No: 31% No opinion: 14%
How do you consider the government's policy:
Rather left: 7% Rather centre: 27% Rather right: 39% No opinion: 27% Those are pretty good polls to be honest. Isnt france always like split in halve? Then this is kinda the best he can hope for. The split is (partly) due to the left-right divide, yes. Macron hoped to "overthrow" it, but he failed in this regard as he mostly replaced the old right, with some of the "centre-left" annexed.
Macron presented himself as a centrist, "et de gauche et de droite" [left-wing and right-wing], but pretty much no one sees the supposed "left" part in his policies.
I don't know how I would have answered to the "his action corresponds to his promises" question, I am absolutely not surprised by what he is doing and it does correspond to his promises on several key points, but objectively he governs way more to the right than he promised.
|
On January 17 2018 20:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 10:58 pmh wrote:On January 16 2018 05:20 TheDwf wrote: Some poll about Macron's action:
Would you say that, so far, Macron's results are:
Negative: 37% Positive: 35% Too early to judge: 21% No opinion: 7%
Would you say that his action corresponds to his promises:
Yes: 55% No: 31% No opinion: 14%
How do you consider the government's policy:
Rather left: 7% Rather centre: 27% Rather right: 39% No opinion: 27% Those are pretty good polls to be honest. Isnt france always like split in halve? Then this is kinda the best he can hope for. The split is (partly) due to the left-right divide, yes. Macron hoped to "overthrow" it, but he failed in this regard as he mostly replaced the old right, with some of the "centre-left" annexed. Macron presented himself as a centrist, " et de gauche et de droite" [left-wing and right-wing], but pretty much no one sees the supposed "left" part in his policies. I don't know how I would have answered to the "his action corresponds to his promises" question, I am absolutely not surprised by what he is doing and it does correspond to his promises on several key points, but objectively he governs way more to the right than he promised. He promised to be more left leaning beforehand, but given his history and his policy proposals, being a "typical" neoliberal candidate slightly to the right of the center should come as a surprise to nobody. And that seems to be exactly the type of policy his pushing.
|
On January 17 2018 03:01 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 01:25 TheDwf wrote:On January 17 2018 00:12 Big J wrote:Foreign politics of our new government explained in one picture: + Show Spoiler + Hahaha By the way, is Austria a net contributor or does it receive more money from the EU than it gives? It's about a billion euro in net contributions as far as I know, kind of the same share of GNI as France, Denmark, UK and Italy pay and half of the Netherlands' share according to the graphic in this article: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-centuryOne of the signature projects of the new government is changing direct child funding to something calculated from the living costs of where the child lives. So that people from the east who work here send less money from austria - and people who have children going to expensive schools in switzerland or luxemburg get more money. It has hardly any budgetary consequences and noone knows whether this can even go through due to EU regulations, but "fuck those Tschuschn and the EU with them we have paid enough for them". (Tschusch = bad language for yugoslavian, used for all eastern europeans) Just wanted to give my 2 cents on EU financing, contributors vs receivers. Disclaimer: I am from an EU country that is a net receiver, I do work in the field (european funds), and I m pro-EU. 1. While the article posted above is well researched and facts based, it is actually a lot harder to properly asses how much a country pays and receives, even if we do not look at indirect gains (see 2nd point). It really isnt X country pays xxx ammount, and gets back xxx-n or xxx+n ammount.
The main reason for this is that the EU has these so called financial Multiannual financial frameworks, for example 2007-2013 and 2014-2020. That means, that it plans its spending on a 7 year period, rather than a 1 year period, but the contributions happen yearly. OK, why does it matter, you pay each year, and you get a fixed amount back throughout a 7 year period right? Absolutely wrong. First of all, you must understand, that these sums arent handouts, in other words there isnt a point in time, when Bruxelles says to Austria or Bulgaria, ok, here s you allowance for this year, spend it wisely. Detailed explanations: + Show Spoiler +Instead there are guidelines and multiple funds for multiple areas, for example there is Infrastructure investment, grants for Small and Medium Enterprises, funds for Human resources and social equality etc. etc.
To get this money, one has to apply with a documentation, asking for a specified amount, and explaining on what it s planning to spend said money. Now, the country itself isnt applying, and most of the time it s not even its government who s asking for that money. In most cases it s local public authorities, say towns, villages or S&M Enterprises or NGOs applying for that money to invest it in roads, buildings, machines or cultural programs, trainings etc.
So what does that even mean, it means that a country isnt getting money, but is allotted a fixed amount from which said country and the entities residing there can apply for small chunks. Newer and poorer EU member states obviously are given a larger slice of the pie, but that does not mean they eat it too. In fact quite the opposite happens, member states that are doing well manage to absorb 99% of the allotted funds, while newer states where there are a lot of things lacking, manage to absorb significantly less, somewhere between 50-90%. Not to mention that they are subject to fines and cancellation of payments for mismanagement of EU funds or flat out fraud due to corruption *looks at Romania*.
Furthermore, it complicates things that these 7 year periods arent for 7 years. For example the 2007-2013 period had payments processes in 2014, 2015 and in some exceptional cases even in 2016. This distorts the stats, since if you look at spending by the end of 2013, it looks like most of the money went unspent. And that s not true, since it might have been spent in the following years. On the other hand, it means there are years when a country significantly over-performs or under-performs in the absorption of EU funds, in general the first couple of years of a financial period mean very small absorption rate, while the last years (and the extended +2 or +3 years) show a very high rate.
What I m saying is, that it is so easy to manipulate stats, without uttering a single lie or using bad data. It just depends how you pick your criteria for the analysis and which time-frame you re looking at. Example, look at Romania's absorption in 2014, absolutely stellar, you can make a nice graph out of it and applaud. Or, look at them for 2017, terrible.
2. Indirect gains Germany is the absolute nr 1 in terms of net contributions, if we take nominal values, and they are very high even if we take per capita values. I think you d be hard pressed to find people, who say that poor Germany, being in the EU is such a bad deal for them, they re just hemorrhaging money, to all these "shithole countries" to use a trumpism.
Aside from the very obvious, and thoroughly proven hypothesis that it pays in the long run to have neighbors and allies who are doing well economically, even if you have to help them initially, there are many other considerations (free movement of work for example is a very big + for Germany, which imports trained and untrained eastern European workers for years, doctors and field workers, they take them all), from which im detailing one, which is less known>
+ Show Spoiler +If you dared to open the wall of text in the previous spoiler, you ve seen that i mentioned that S&M enterprises are one of the beneficiaries of EU funds. Now, take a random eastern European company from any industry. What characterizes (or characterized until very recently) these companies? They have been working with "privatized" piece of shit equipment and machines left over from the communist regimes or managed to buy some amortized ones from the west, after they were written off.
So what do they want to spend money on? New, state of the art machinery. Can they afford it? No, it s too expansive, they have no capital, banks arent willing to lend them huge sums of money, even if they put in the machine in as collateral, cuz in the case they go bankrupt, where are they gonna sell that highly specialized, incredibly expansive CNC unit or production line.
Here comes the EU, saying, look, we will support 70% of the costs, buy those new machines, all you have to do is come up with the rest of 30%, and agree to a *small* list of requirements about this and that (HR stuff, environmental stuff etc).
great, let s say all is dandy, the firm gets the grant, and can buy the machine. Ok, where to buy it? In his home-state, other eastern EU states? Who are we kidding? They re gonna buy German machines, or maybe Austrian or Dutch or other western European (not French tho). So that money the EU lent the company flows right back out of the country. Do you know the best part, it is not illegal or prohibited that a Dutch businessman to open up a company in say Bulgaria, apply for EU funding, buy Dutch production equipment, hire cheap Bulgarian workforce and sell all their products back to the Netherlands, make a profit, and take it by the end of the year. Oh and btw, after 3-5 years, you are usually free to do whatever the hell you want with your machines that you brought, say ship it out of the country if you want. Ok, in all fairness, SME grants are a very small fish compared to big infrastructure spending say highways or airports, but as i said, it s a lesser known aspect, which i tought i d share.
So all in all, looking at an article or a table or a graph that says Oh look, this EU country paid X ammount and recieved only X-n ammount.... doesnt tell half of the stotry, though it is true and factual.
|
On January 17 2018 14:37 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 09:37 Danglars wrote: Good start Austria. I think the EU through its regs has gotten too big for its britches. For example? From articles I was reading about the GDPR and the costs and time for compliance. Earlier, during the Brexit fight, the regulations on foodstuffs and appliances were pretty ridiculous.
|
On January 18 2018 00:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 14:37 Nixer wrote:On January 17 2018 09:37 Danglars wrote: Good start Austria. I think the EU through its regs has gotten too big for its britches. For example? From articles I was reading about the GDPR and the costs and time for compliance. Earlier, during the Brexit fight, the regulations on foodstuffs and appliances were pretty ridiculous.
As someone who works with private data (for academic research purposes), I have to agree that the GDPR is a fucking bureaucratic mess. On the other hand, I completely support the ideological and ethical principles underpinning the GDPR effort, and while the implementation is not entirely to my liking, I like that entities are being held accountable for the data they collect. It's about time the government took a more active role in mediating data collection and privacy in the 21st century.
|
Victory of the oldest struggle in France:
France abandons plan for €580m airport and orders squatters off site
Government ends decades of debate by opting instead to expand an existing airport in Nantes
The French government has abandoned plans for a new €580m (£513m) airport in western France, a sensitive decision that past governments had shirked for decades, but announced campaigners who have occupied the site must leave. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/17/france-abandons-plan-for-580m-airport-in-west-of-country
The contestation against this airport (the project exists since 1963, and the Notre-Dame-des-Landes location was chosen in 1968) exists since almost 50 years. The project had been "unfrozen" in the early 2000s; under Hollande, whose Prime minister was the former mayor of Nantes and one of the numerous local barons supporting this stupid project, an attempt at evacuating the zone had failed*. This dossier had become very symbolic, with pro- and anti-airport fighting an entrenched war to prevail.
*On top of local farmers and inhabitants who refused to be expropriated, some people are (illegally) occupying the lands since 2008-2009. They basically turned the area into some kind of self-managed ecosocialist live experiment.
|
An entrenched war against an airport. France is nuts.
|
That is downright impressive. We have had similar struggles in the US with squatters vs investors who sit on blighted properties. The most famous in New York City, which went on for like 20 years. But nothing to that scale. Good for them, it’s nice to see conviction on that scale rewarded.
|
On January 18 2018 00:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2018 00:45 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 14:37 Nixer wrote:On January 17 2018 09:37 Danglars wrote: Good start Austria. I think the EU through its regs has gotten too big for its britches. For example? From articles I was reading about the GDPR and the costs and time for compliance. Earlier, during the Brexit fight, the regulations on foodstuffs and appliances were pretty ridiculous. As someone who works with private data (for academic research purposes), I have to agree that the GDPR is a fucking bureaucratic mess. On the other hand, I completely support the ideological and ethical principles underpinning the GDPR effort, and while the implementation is not entirely to my liking, I like that entities are being held accountable for the data they collect. It's about time the government took a more active role in mediating data collection and privacy in the 21st century.
Now if I could only figure out the owner of those companies that spam me. Then I could demand the information they have on me and its removal. When they fail to supply it (as they will ignore it), report them for breach of privacy laws instead of spam.
Sweden is one of the countries that has stricter laws implemented due to the GDPR. So we had to do a major analysis at the company I work at. Still not sure we got it right even after trying.
|
On January 18 2018 00:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 14:37 Nixer wrote:On January 17 2018 09:37 Danglars wrote: Good start Austria. I think the EU through its regs has gotten too big for its britches. For example? From articles I was reading about the GDPR and the costs and time for compliance. Earlier, during the Brexit fight, the regulations on foodstuffs and appliances were pretty ridiculous. What is wrong with GDPR? Do you think the costs and time for compliance is a problem? You only need to look at the Equifax scandal to realise that there is a need for regulation on data and that the data should protect citizens, not companies. What do you find wrong with EU regulations on foodstuff and appliances? If there is an effective single market, safety regulations must be normalised acrossed all the countries.
Is there too much regulations? There could be but the direct implication of your colloquialism is that the EU is somehow arrogant for having homogenizing food, safety and personal data regulation. That doesn't make sense.
|
On January 18 2018 03:34 RvB wrote: An entrenched war against an airport. France is nuts.
We recently had the case whether the Viennese airport gets a third runway. This has been sued on the basis of some weak and vague "state goals" that the soc-dems and the conservatives agreed on. Long story short, the court decided, based on the massive increase in ecobilance that would severely endager the "state goals" that it was not OK to build it, therefore ÖVP and FPÖ will probably change the laws. "Because protecting the enviroment is fine, but actually making decisions based on ecological questions is not."
|
|
|
|