[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[hyzmarca]

The obvious one is the UK ignoring all the other treaties, of which there are many. Having a country ignore one EU law isn't the same as having them ignore all EU laws. Ignoring one treaty isn't the same as ignoring all treaties.

Once someone proves they will ignore any treaty they don't want to follow, you immediately know the only reason they follow any treaty is because they want to. So if the UK takes the position of "we ignore treaties we don't like" (whatever those even are, I mean, I think you are some kind of crazy person, so maybe your goal is to get rid of all the filthy immigrants or something, but back in reality, there's not really a reason for the UK to ignore any treaty), then it follows that any treaty they are following is one they are willingly doing, so if you start not following whatever treaty you want, you can be sure that the UK won't respond by ignoring treaties it wants to follow. Nor should you care if they do, because all it means is they were going to ignore those treaties anyway.

Well no. There is degrees of how much you dislike treaty obligations. One obligation might be mildly annoying but it's not worth violating. Another might be completely country to your stated policies. Ignoring the treaty that destroys your ability to enact your preferred policies is different from ignoring the treaty that is only mildly annoying. So even if you abrogate the disastrous treaties, that doesn't mean that you won't stick to ones that you merely dislike. However, it does mean that you're more likely to abrogate the ones that you merely dislike if pushed.

[MGuy]

So your position, hyz, is that Britain goes and ignores its treaties if and when it feels like. You also think the other countries will just be ok with that because Britain really REALLY wants to do things its way while the other countries in the treaty continue abiding by it?. Am I getting that right?

[hyzmarca]

So your position, hyz, is that Britain goes and ignores its treaties if and when it feels like. You also think the other countries will just be ok with that because Britain really REALLY wants to do things its way while the other countries in the treaty continue abiding by it?. Am I getting that right?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.

[erik]

I take hyzmarca's political posts to mostly be absurdist jokes. Not much point in analyzing them.

[hyzmarca]

I take hyzmarca's political posts to mostly be absurdist jokes. Not much point in analyzing them.

While some of my political posts are absurdist jokes, and some are serious but take things to an absurdist extreme, I do have to say that selectively ignoring treaty obligations is something that really happens all the time.

I mentioned the United States, because the United States is often guilty of it, especially in cases where following treaty obligations would require acts of Congress, and Congress just doesn't bother passing any laws authorizing it. But it happens with other countries, too. Because laws are complex and separation of powers can be a bitch.

And the truth of the matter is that those treaties aren't automatically voided, even if some provisions of them are unilaterally ignored. Because countries enter into treaties for specific reasons and get specific benefits. Like, if Britain tomorrow decided to outlaw homosexuality again, that's a horrific human rights violation and it's a violation of EU law. But no EU country is going to piss away their trade treaties over it.

It's a question is value. Is the treaty provision that was violated more important to you than all the other treaty provisions that are still being upheld. Yes or no. If yes, then you threaten to set the whole treaty on fire if the other guy doesn't comply, and a follow through with it. If no, then you go home and call it a day, because it doesn't matter that much to you.

Now, Conservatives benefit more from this than Liberals do, because no one is ever going to fight you over human rights treaty violations. Then might make a sink over it to score political points, but they're not going to risk anything important for a few minorities in another country.

But even things like purely domestic business regulations just just happen to violate EU law are likely to fly without complaint, particularly when such regulations will just make your local businesses less competitive with theirs.

[Username17]

People who are advocating a step into darkness and total chaos should not ignore how much the EU is basically Calvinball already. The ECB violated treaties by enacting OMT. Denmark violated treaties this year by instituting border controls. The first was a positive step towards better governance and the other was a reactionary attack on the human rights of brown people. But in both cases those violations were grumbled about but not actually stopped by anyone.

The truth is that violating the EU treaties happens all the time. Countries just do stuff, and sometimes that's against some EU rule or another and the rest of the EU mostly just has to suck it. When France violates budget treaties or Denmark violates border treaties or Hungary violates treaties on judicial independence, the fuck do you think happens?

The truth is that while there are European courts that can issue rulings and levy fines, at the end of the day the EU's only real enforcement mechanism is that if the other countries get pissed off at your shenanigans enough they might actually vote you off the island. But no country has ever or will ever get voted off the island for violating rules on fiscal and monetary policy. I have no idea how far you have to go to actually get kicked out because it has never happened. Fucking Hungary hasn't been kicked out, and they violated pretty much the entire charter.

Anyone who says that countries in the EU can't do something because it violates an EU treaty is either making an argument that the country should not pursue that policy or they simply don't understand how the EU works.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

And in conclusion, that's why Germany won't care at all when its designated victim countries that it needs to maximize its economy leave the Euro, causing it economic damage, but will move heaven and earth to destroy England and refuse reasonable treaties to punish it for leaving the EU in a way that doesn't hurt Germany at all.

And of course, Germany and the ECB and the European Commission would never ever actually refuse to honor treaties with Greece after they leave the Euro, even though they specifically said they would.

[MGuy]

So... if no one cares what member nations in the EU do, especially when those member nations do it in order to help themselves, what's the story with Greece? Member nations made a lot of hoopla about Greece doing what 'they' wanted them to do. I distinctly remember opposing forces in Greece being openly mocked for not wanted to cut spending.

[hyzmarca]

So... if no one cares what member nations in the EU do, especially when those member nations do it in order to help themselves, what's the story with Greece? Member nations made a lot of hoopla about Greece doing what 'they' wanted them to do. I distinctly remember opposing forces in Greece being openly mocked for not wanted to cut spending.

1) Because the EU is run by Austrian School shitheads who sincerely believe that less spending is good for the economy, so their demands for Austerity were meant to be helpful and constructive.

2) Because Greece was actually asking them for money. It wasn't just a matter of them sitting back and keeping business as usual. It was a matter of them giving Greece cash.

[MGuy]

Isn't #2 the reason why they wanted to leave? Because they couldn't just make their own money and solve their issues but had to go asking for it because they are a member?

[DSMatticus]

But no country has ever or will ever get voted off the island for violating rules on [...] monetary policy.

Citation needed. No one has yet tried to leave the euro or introduce an unauthorized currency. But it is worth noting that an individual member's violation of monetary policy would be one of the first violations of the treaty to have a significant influence on the domestic governance of other member states - even a parallel currency with an inequal exchange rate would have... interesting effects on the eurozone, economically and politically.

The EU has never seriously been challenged. It has failed to do a number of things it should have, but much of its failures to-date are simple political apathy. If there's one thing the EU has in abundance, it is the willingness to sit quietly by while things go horribly wrong. The closest anyone has come to forcing the EU's hand was Varoufakis - whose plan was, if negotiations broke down, to do a bunch of blatantly illegal shit and then hope their opposition couldn't find the balls to punish them for it. Hence Tsipras's referendum, which set the stage for the battle Varoufakis had planned to fight. Unfortunately at the mention of the word referendum Greece's few allies (which were already too small a block to earn Greece any significant concessions) abandoned them completely and any hope that Germany would win the battle but lose the war evaporated.

[Username17]

Citation Needed

Hungary violated the monetary policy treaties in several major ways. The European Commission took them to court and threatened to withold bailout moneys that Hungary needed because they are run by fascist dipshits who are ruining the economy. In the end, Hungary partially backed down and scrapped a big rule that let Orban pack the central bank's governing board until he got actions that he wanted. But Hungary remains in violation of several sections of the treaty - the backing down was actually pretty limited on Hungary's part. Very notably, no one even attempted to get the votes they need to kick Hungary out of the Union, not even when they were running an inflation rate 4 percent higher than that allowed by EU treaty.

Remember: of all Hungary's multiple treaty violations, the European Commission took them to court over three and Hungary backed down on one or two depending on how you look at it. Obviously Grexiting Greece would get slapped harder than that, but so what?

As for Fiscal policy, France has been in violation more years than it has been in compliance. And they have never really paid a price at all.

Yes, if a country left the Euro and made their own currency they would be punished in various ways. That is definitely a thing that would happen. But there are too many EU countries that are not on the Euro or which might get forced off the Euro in the near future for the threat of ostracism for not being on the Euro to carry any weight. Is Czechia going to vote to kick Greece out of the EU because they aren't on the Euro? No. No they are not. Neither is Italy.

Greece would be denied access to financial markets for a time and would suffer quite a lot in the short term. However, defaulting and reflating would give it a clear path to future growth that it does not currently have.

The UK exiting the entire EU would be a bigger slap in the face to the EU and leave them as an outside nation - subject to effective sanctions even from simple majorities. Not only would a brexiting Britain have less allies, but it would take less enemies to levy penalties on them. They would also suffer in the short term, and they would be gaining nothing in terms of potential future growth. There are literally zero channels for future economic growth that are open post Brexit that aren't open now. Unlike the Grexit choice of clear pain now for future growth possibilities, Brexit is just pain and more pain for nothing. Literally nothing.

-Username17

[Josh_Kablack]

My only real take away from all of this is that __xit is the new __gate. Henceforth I shall refer to calls from secessionist nutjobs in the Lone Star state as a Texit, remind drunks that Cinco de Mayo does not commorate thet Mexit, and best of all recall George Washington's role in the U-Sex-it.

[Mechalich]

Well, Brexit made John Oliver. He's rather solidly in the remain camp, which probably shouldn't surprise anyone. It's a decent and funny piece though.

[RobbyPants]

...and best of all recall George Washington's role in the U-Sex-it.

I love that I get a day off work for this.

[Kaelik]

Well, Brexit made John Oliver. He's rather solidly in the remain camp, which probably shouldn't surprise anyone. It's a decent and funny piece though.

I was a little disappointed that his "it makes sense to hate the EU" part was 100% about making jokes about other EU countries and 0% about how the EU does shitty things, but none of them hurt the UK. Less singing about how Poland is sad, and more pointing out that legitimate gripes with the EU are not actually helped by Brexit would have been ideal.

[DSMatticus]

Jon Oliver's coverage of the Greek debt crisis has also been fairly... shit. I understand that he's a comedian, but I'm pretty sure more than half of his total coverage of the crisis boils down to "Varoufakis dresses funny," which is... not helpful, considering Varoufakis has been right about pretty much every-fucking-thing and is now one of the few voices of the international campaign for EU reform in an otherwise apathetic European leftwing.

I get that I am a radical, what with my belief that starving children in the name of crank economics is evil and allowing that to happen in the name of 'not rocking the boat' isn't much better, and I am certainly not going to demand ideological purity from everyone on all issues, but... man, there is a global media empire dedicated to telling conservatives exactly what they want to hear even when it's not true, and yet I can't find a single motherfucker who can stop themself from indulging in an addiction to both sides bullshit.

[Kaelik]

and yet I can't find a single motherfucker who can stop themself from indulging in an addiction to both sides bullshit.

The part that annoys me is that there are people who totally don't do that for US politics, or do it way way way way way the fuck less, but as soon as you turn around and make it about anything with a foreign country, John Olliver would rather make jokes about maps than actually address substantive issues.

[Username17]

The EU doesn't just starve children. The mandatory minimum policies are actually well to the left of what Britain votes for itself. The 1998 working time provision of the EU gave paid vacations to two million working people in the UK who didn't have any before hand.

Smashing up the EU really is causing huge harm to tens of millions of people even if there isn't any negative political fallout.

It's just a sad fact that Europe is farther to the right than you want it to be and schlock economics are taken more seriously than they should be. Breaking up the EU won't change those facts.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

It is a fact that Greece elected Syriza and instead got Germany's CDU, which is neither what they voted for nor even on the ballot, but nonetheless those are the people who are de facto ruling the Greek economy. That is not a Europe "farther to the right than I want it to be." That is a failure of democracy so complete and total that it would justify actual revolution, particularly when you remember that the country I live in exists as a result of grievances arguably less severe than these. "Man, these moderately exploitative taxes suck. No more undemocratic mandates from the British Parliament! #teagate" And breaking up the EU will change those facts real fucking fast, in that it will empower Syriza (and other leftwing governments) to make sovereign monetary and fiscal decisions instead of having their laws emailed to them from Brussels. And to be frank, Greece does not owe Europe its patience. Greece genuinely had (and almost certainly still has) a faster path to recovery outside the EU (you'd have to be a fucking idiot to think otherwise at this point), and they would be perfectly within their rights to respond to the EU's demands (which are coming from both the left and right) that they sacrifice themself to the cult of austerity in the name of unity with a giant middle finger.

But no, Europe is not farther to the right than I want it to be. The EU is farther to the right than I want it to be, but the EU is - and this is important - not Europe. It is a series of undemocratic institutions which are being used to impose rightwing demands upon member states while the leftwing acquiesces quietly in the name of not rocking the boat, lest they endanger the project by raising their voice against the rightwing's bullshit. It's a fucking catastrophe, and there's no evidence it's going to get better anytime soon. And the argument for sticking with it is... the fear of the unknown? That isn't really all that unknown, because we know what the pre-Maastricht Europe looked like, and it was fairly prosperous?

[Username17]

No. It is a fact that the Greek people voted for Syrzia and rejected the possibility of leaving the Euro. Presenting a cool rational case for the CDU to pretty please stop hitting them is in fact exactly what the Greek people voted for. Sometimes people vote for proposals that aren't going to work.

Yes, Tsipras needed to go in there with a Grexit plan B. He didn't. Partly because he lacked a democratic mandate for that, partly because he thought no one would call his bluff. But yeah, he lost. His plan, the plan Greek people voted for, was bad.

But that same plan would be just as bad whether Greece was in the Euro or not. If you're not willing to default then you don't have any leverage over your creditors. When it comes down to it, a debt can only be paid or not paid. Once you've taken "not paying" off the table, the creditors don't have to give an inch. On anything.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

That is completely counterfactual. The people of Greece voted an overwhelming no (61%) on the Troika's final offer. You can argue that the mere decision to elect Syriza did not give them a mandate to tell the country's creditors to fuck off (consequences be damned), but then Greece held a referendum explicitly on the question of whether or not to tell the country's creditors to fuck off (consequences be damned) and the Greek people - in a landslide - went with fuck off. Germany gave Greece a bunch of policy demands and the referendum gave Syriza an explicit and highly specific democratic mandate to turn around and tell them to stick those demands up their ass. End of story. I reject your bizarro version of reality in which the referendum results were the exact opposite of what they actually were.

The reason that did not end up happening is not because you or anyone else secretly knows what Greeks want better than the Greeks do, it is because Tsipras was hoping to lose the referendum and thereby be given permission to surrender. He actually did have a plan B, but he (and about half his cabinet) were opposed to executing it. And so while looking for an excuse to tear up that plan, he accidentally stumbled into a democratic mandate to continue fighting, which he completely ignored under further pressure from the EU (which had responded to the referendum by collapsing Greece's banking system) and the sudden evaporation of sympathy among other leftwing leaders (how dare you threaten Our Sacred Project over something as trifling as collapsing into a third world hellhole).

But that same plan would be just as bad whether Greece was in the Euro or not. If you're not willing to default then you don't have any leverage over your creditors. When it comes down to it, a debt can only be paid or not paid. Once you've taken "not paying" off the table, the creditors don't have to give an inch. On anything.

I just have to point out that this is bafflingly backwards. The final decision wasn't "we don't want to default, so we can't fight the EU." It was "we don't want to fight the EU, so we can't default (because that would require fighting the EU)." If you assume that Greece is already getting kicked out of the euro and probably the EU (as you mentioned in the quote), then default is back on the table. The thing that went wrong in Greece is exactly the thing I said it was - an unwillingness to, when the chips were down, actually do anything that might potentially lead to (partial or complete) dissolution of the EU. Everyone involved decided that they would pay any price in order to maintain unity, and so Germany shrugged and wrote the largest bill it could think of.

[Leress]

Here is a VOD of a stream between two people,one on each side of the debate. Thunderf00t against and Sargon for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx9pCbhcrHw

[Maj]

My only real take away from all of this is that __xit is the new __gate. Henceforth I shall refer to calls from secessionist nutjobs in the Lone Star state as a Texit, remind drunks that Cinco de Mayo does not commorate thet Mexit, and best of all recall George Washington's role in the U-Sex-it.

The Guardian has your back: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... referendum

[Blade]

The EU isn't exactly to the right. The EU is a bizarre mess of national priorities, alliances and lobying and personal agendas.

So the way the european parliament will vote on one issue will sometimes have more to do with complex negociations like "I vote your way on this one that I don't care much about because my country won't be affected much, but in exchange you vote my way for this one.".

Even recently, the Europe regularly takes courageous left decisions, like rejecting the ACTA. Even though the economical policies of the EU are insane, the rest isn't that bad (though corporate lobbying had time to adapt and catch up while citizen lobbying is starting to have trouble keeping up, so that might change)