European Politics Thread

Combining the French/German/Spanish/UK/Dutch/Italian National Teams? Why not use the Imperial March when they march out to the field, just to fit the mood most minor teams would feel facing that

I did no such thing.

edited 9th Jan '14 9:19:39 AM by 3of4

You forgot the Dutch and the Italians.

I think what they'll do is have a team for each country with seperate team which can draw players from all over Europe.

Another similar problem would arise for the Olympics. Would they go at my route above?

Given that Puerto Rico competes at the Olympics despite being a part of the USA, I'd say it doesn't matter.

European Union is OK name too. It's familiar. My "Confederate States of Europe" referred more to a style of government. I don't you could create unified, a single cultural nationa like USA from Europe, only a loose confederation where certain matters (foreign policy, defense, economy, big stuff) are handled by the EU while other stuff (implementation, voting, internal affairs) are handles on individual state level.

Also, regarding football:

Why not have European Cup and whoever wins that cup, represents Europe in International Cup?

edited 9th Jan '14 11:42:16 AM by Mandemo

On reflection, I'd be inclined to keep the national teams; Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own teams despite being part of the UK. We will need a single Olympic team though, it seems: but that could be good, since it might make the Olympics less of a Sino-American two-horse race.

Another alternative for FIFA tournaments could possibly be to do it regionally: So we could have Team Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Team Mediterranean (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy), Team Central (Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia), Team British Isles, Team Balkans (the Balkans, Greece), Team Nordic, Team Baltic (the Baltic States) etc all competing separately.

Moving on from fitba, I've discovered a fine new blog, European Courts, which looks at "Case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)" This week in the ECtHR.

• Cusan and Fazzo v Italy: Italy's ban on allowing children to take the wife's name(!) is incompatble with Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR (respect for private and family life and prohibition on discrimination respectively).

Surprising a law like that was still on the books in modern Europe, tbh.

• Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, A.S. v. Slovakia (no.2) and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, A.S. v. Slovakia (no.3): Slovakian courts have failed to respect the rights of freedom of expression in both cases, as they placed undue emphasis on the Article 8 right to privacy. The cases concerned reports in Novy Cas, Slovakia's biggest-selling tabloid, which were fairly important; the first suggested that a Chief Prosecutor had overstepped the law to persecute a driver accused of running down his son, the second suggested a contestant on Slovakian Who Wants To Be A Millionaire had cheated.

Now for the serious bit:

• Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia: Russia isn't allowed to forcibly disappear people who happen to be Chechens, because, funnily enough, even Chechens have an article 2 right to life. Funnily enough, this is actually most of what the ECtHR does, rather than annoy British conservatives who don't understand it:

edited 9th Jan '14 11:54:14 AM by Achaemenid

There are plenty of such laws still in effect, but a lot of them go without enforcing, either because nobody cares about them or because nobody remembers them.

You used to be able to get jailed for blasphemy in Finland, though nobody really upheld said law. It's removed from the law now.

EDIT

I am surprised they needed a court order with Russian case. Shouldn't that be, oh I dunno, common sense? Then again, this is Russia, where nothing works but everything is taken care of.

edited 9th Jan '14 1:49:21 PM by Mandemo

Where Russia's concerned, I think applying to the ECtHR is at best a moral victory. I don't think Russia ever actually pays attention to the Court's judgements or acts on them.

I suppose the court could at least sentence some of the people involved in the crimes, and issue international search warrants for them. That would prevent those people from traveling in or through Europe, at least without a false identity. Maybe every now and then we'd catch someone who has been shown to have been involved in disappearing Chechens. It would be a small but perhaps significant victory for international justice.

The ECtHR doesn't sentence anybody, or hold trials, or issue any kind of warrant. It's a strictly interpretational court; its only job is to hear appeals on the compatibility of state action with convention rights. I suppose it could order the Russians to pay damages, but they'd probably ignore it.

So I suppose it can't ask a third country to try a suspect upon capture...

Damn.

...and so, in France, Hollande is doing about as well as usual:

• Hollande refuses to discuss rumours of an affair with actress Julie Gayet
• France: the new sick man of Europe

I lost all confidence in him since he basically just continues Sarkozy's policies.

You've got to admit though that it is an actress and not a singer that he has an affair with.

...moving beyond French stereotypes, I'll say I've seen something of a rebuke to the synthetic sausage smoking scandal story.

Russia: Shootout in Dagestan leaves four militants and three security forces officers dead.

Sochi ain't looking so hot, is it. Putin must be wondering if he's made a bit of a miscalculation.

What the fuck is happening to my country?

A completely amoral, foreign financial institution like Goldman-Sachs buying out the infrastructure of a nation. Politicians who will not give any details about the negotiations, even though it has been leaked that there were better offers, from national pension funds even. A government which just claims that it was the best possible deal, and we just don't understand, that it's to complicated for our little heads. Now, does this sound like something that would happen in a first-world European country? Well, it's happening in Denmark right the fuck now.

The government has decided that DONG energy must be privatised at any cost and the best way of giving the company a transfusion of money is to sell a 19% share to Goldman-Sachs (despite the fact the state could easily have obtained cheap loans instead). Now this may not sound like much, but despite the fact that they are only buying 19% they are given special privileges, such as veto-right when it comes to changes in leadership and strategy. Yes, we are giving a completely unscrupulous company which was a chief actor in the economic crisis, a company that only cares about short-term profits veto-right, when it comes to decisions of energy. Right now, more than ever, we need to focus on developing renewable energy, curbing the dependency on coal and oil. This is not a strategy that a short-sighted profiteer will green-light, rather the exact opposite. Apparently it has been recently discovered that we have some shale in our underground, maybe they could import the great practice of polluting our drinking-water with short-term solutions like fracking? I mean, it's profitable in the short term and why should they give a damn about the long-term when they can just sell their stocks and get the fuck out. Well, we can't.

The most important resource in the coming century will undoubtedly be energy. As sources of cheap conventional energy run dry, energy will become the biggest tool of international power, outside of armed force. Giving a foreign company access to your energy infrastructure, is granting them access to power on a scale tantamount to betrayal of the nation. And the real kicker; they are selling it a at a price, which is quite a bit lower than DONG's projected market value, despite better offers. What possible reason could they have to do this? Corruption and/or ideology is the only possible answer I can think of. Apparently Denmark was ranked as one of the least corrupt nations in the world last year. Well I'm certainly not feeling it. I feel like the inhabitant of some non-European nation during the age of imperialism. These politicians are selling out our energy infrastructure, without even bothering to consult us about the negotiations, since that would be against ”good business etiquette”. Well, I care more about democracy than business etiquette, but is is becoming more and more clear to me that politicians don't. They have chosen a side, and it is not the side of the people, nor is it the side of the sane. It is the side of the short-term profiteers, who will do everything to keep their current grasp on power, up to and including overseeing the total exhaustion of the earth's natural resources. All the fine speeches about the free market and economics etc. is just that, an attempt to conserve current power structures by those in power, I.E. the wealthy. And they are succeeding.

When we elected the current government, we elected a social-democrat government after 10 years of a right-wing one. But they have done nothing but continue the same neo-liberal bullshit that the former government did, illustrating all to clearly that we have no real choice and that they are social-democrats in name only.

The vast majority of influential politicians all subscribe to the same basic ideology; privatise, privatise, privatise. Free markets are good, free markets are god. Do not dare interfere with the will and the wisdom of the market, for it is beyond our ken. Humans are fallible and weak creatures, trying to plan things, to use our reason will only result in pain and suffering. Leave it all to the market. The market will solve all. The market is god. It's a fucking religion and economists are the high priests, warning us that if we do not follow the dogmas of the free market what awaits us is Stalinist Russia. So they are either useful idiots if they actually believe or as I mentioned above just cowering up the fact that this is a simple power-struggle in fancy terms and math (the latter tends to impress a lot of people, being a physicist it holds no inherent impressiveness for me). It's probably a bit of both.

Regardless, I'm pissed of by the state of politics. I used to be a moderate person, but I feel like the world is being radicalised and I am being radicalised along with it, for to stay moderate in the current environment is to stand by and watch the world burn.

edited 19th Jan '14 10:13:15 AM by mathias

I'm applying for a job in Copenhagen in a while. Looks like things might be interesting.

Macedonia is "frustrated" by Greece's efforts to block its European Union membership over a longstanding identity dispute, the country's Prime Minister has said.

Germany's economy minister wants to cut the support price paid for electricity from solar and wind power generators by about a third by 2015.

Italy's controversial ex-PM Silvio Berlusconi has returned to the centre of the political stage, striking a reform deal with a centre-left rival.

...Silvio, please, please, please, please quit respawning! You take Recurring Boss to new depths. -_-

Berlusconi's like Ridley, somehow he always comes back.

We must nuke him from orbit. It's the Only Way to Be Sure.

edited 20th Jan '14 3:21:18 AM by 3of4

French President Francois Hollande cautiously backs Turkey's EU bid.

An interesting part of the current French Political System are the twelve Constituencies for French residents overseas, which were first elected in the 2012 Elections. There are also 12 Senators, selected by the Assembly of French Citizens Abroad that also represent French Citizens abroad in the Senate.

What does everything think of that?

edited 2nd Feb '14 2:56:54 AM by Greenmantle

Do they enter the larger European scheme of things?

Because they seem to be connected only to the Francophone world.

The Constituencies? As the article says, the twelve cover every single country recognised by France.