Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
SCHOOLS SHOULD START AT DIFFERENT TIMES FOR DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS, TEENAGERS HAVE A DIFFERENT SLEEP CICLE THEN NORMAL!
and the feeding thereof.
I am however annoyed when people think their whinny self-centered discomforts should somehow be relevant to anyone else.
Look at the bright side, because it can always be worse. Be content with what you have, and don't waste time pining away for something, that at the end of the day, won't make a difference.
"Hello, may I talk to you about our Lord and Saviour Raid Shadow Legends?"
Uniting makes sence indeed when looking at the future world. But atm it is abused with open border policies regarding immigration that just wipes our culture away, billions to the Paris agreement, bad deals with Turkey and Morocco, alot of this just goes to fast and the worse thing is nobody in the EU parliament has been democratically chosen. I mean just look at this corona stuff ( blessing to all that suffer and work hard to combat it ) ; there is little cooperation between countries. IF globalism is the future then I wish it would happen more gradually and democratically.
The European Parliament is voted on in each Member State. It has been that way since 1979 - before which the governments of each Member State nominated representatives.
I'm sure you can't be referring here to the European Council, either, as that simply consists of the heads of government of each Member State. I doubt you would be referring to the Council of the European Union, either, as that is likewise a gathering of government representatives from each Member State.
So either you are talking about the EU Parliament pre-1979, or the European Commission in general. You can't be referring to the European Parliament as it is now, as that is demonstrably democratically elected.
To be fair though, you want the Commission to not be elected - the people have the Parliament that represent them (and that they vote for), the governments of each country have the Councils, which consist of members of the governments, but the Commission represents the EU as a whole.
If the Commission became an elected body, the EU would cease to function after around 20 years, as the only way the Commissioners are able to act in the best interests of the EU as a whole is due to the fact that they are not beholden to either the individual governments or individual citizens of the EU (each group of which has their own representatives), but rather are beholden the the idea of the EU as a whole.
In all honesty, I'm going to put your opinion here down to a lack of understanding how the EU itself functions (understandable, it is the most complex democratic institution in history), but that lack of understanding is coupled with direct misinformation (which, on a mass scale, these two things result in situations like Brexit).
Because I would like to explain what really bothers people here and revived the 'NEXIT' movement in NL: Besides cultural, financial changes and the fear of a european army (they say they won't but considering the following changes nothing will be a suprise) there are 2 main points that are to rushed and make no sence on the bigger scale which are immigration and climate change paris agreement. We have one of the best and most sophisticated farmers and fishermen in the world and alot of them r being laid down to lower farm emission rules. And these are different for countrys that lie next to eachothere. Recently the maximum speed on motorways went down from 130 to 100 km/h.. yes everywhere in the country overnight. to meet emission rules. While just kilometers away in germany there are long stretched autobahns without a speed limit. Not even to mention the subsidy on electric cars which is insane. Meanwhile China has near to no pollution laws and the continent of Afrika is facing a big increase of aiconditioners while economy's improve. Or the migration of which ofcource a part truely needs help but not everybody; gets a place to live with sport membership and 600 euro a month to buy food. Disrupting neighbourhoods. Delaying legal trials which are complicated if the country of origin does not accept back. Could give alot of examples of how crazy money is being thrown at these things.
Wall off text in short.. Imo yes standing as one human race is good if we want to acomplish bigger goals but please, in a controlled and fair global way.
The EU can not pass any law that the European Parliament does not approve, and you vote for members of the EU parliament.
Your own national government has the power to enact almost any law they want, as long as it doesn't directly conflict with an existing EU law.
It's interesting that you bought up the Paris Agreement.
A very simple explanation of how that worked is that each country that agreed to it is then asked to set a target emissions reduction, and then report on it regularly. Each individual entity that has ratified the Agreement is then free to determine how they will attempt to meat their target.
Since both the EU and each EU Member State ratified the Agreement, the responsibilities of deciding where the emissions targets will be achieved was split between the EU and each nations government.
The EU's role in this was minimal, it only dealt with cross border issues (airlines and such). The reason the motorways in The Netherlands had their speed reduced yet those in Germany didn't is because the government of The Netherlands decided that was a good place to reduce emissions, and the government of Germany didn't.
Same with farming emissions - that was a decision on the national level, not the EU level.
You can't blame the EU for that, you have to blame Mark Rutte and his government.
Now, issues with immigration are real. This is a fact I won't argue. However, the first step of any answer to any political question this complicated is for the population concerned to educate themselves on the situation.
The problem with elected officials is that they are not going to ever be that much more informed than the general public that they represent. This is because of two reasons - first, those voted officials are pulled from that general public, and second, in order to be re-elected, they need that general public to understand that they are doing good things for them.
If the general public doesn't understand politics, they don't understand when a politician does a good thing for them if that thing is complex. So instead, politicians focus on doing easier to understand things (like building walls), simply because people understand it.
Basically, if everyone in a given electorate is overly politically literate, then the politicians representing them need to be exceedingly politically literate. If the electorate is somewhat politically illiterate, then the politicians representing them are most likely to get reelected if they focus on being popular rather than being good politicians.
And i understand the rich do balance out the poor in the long run but again.... The average citizen like myselve as local buisnes owner, notices alot of money going out and alot of pointless laws returning. This average citizen accepts helping others and working togetherewith other countrys - but does not relate to the crazy measures being taken.
It is only part of the bigger picture though. We did not even start about the loss of cultural identity and woman fertility rate yet but lets not go there for the sake of forum TOS xd
1. The netherlands pays 236€ per capita, while germany pays 240€ per capita
2. The netherlands pays around 4 billion, while germany pays around 19.5 billion
3. Germany looses around 13 billion a year on the eu, do you see us cry like a baby?
4. The EU is a democratically elected government.
Get your facts right please...
https://ec.europa.eu/budget/graphs/revenue_expediture.html
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union
That kinda depends where you get your numbers from i guess, could be 8 or 1 year old.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-are-the-biggest-boost-or-drag-on-the-eu-budget/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318
https://inews.co.uk/news/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-get-back-537626
All i know and can confirm is that Germany is the biggest netto contributor with Netherlands being the biggest contributor per capita. Lets keep in mind that Netherlands has 17m+ish ppl and Germany 80m+ish. Not that it has to do with the point I am making but the math here should say enough.
This subject seems to hit a sore spot at anyone whether for- or against a EU nation. And i dont know nearly enough about politics to get entangled further in this discussion. Just wanted to use the chance to rage at my prime minister from what i notice changing on a personal level, and what alot of dutchy's seem to agree with
We've already established that your understanding of the EU is not as good as you would like to think it is, it is probably the same here.
Getting angry at something you don't actually understand is really easy. If you understand it, and are still angry, then you have a valid grievance.
While it is true that The Netherlands does contribute the largest portion of it's GDP to the EU out of all Member States, it's worth noting that it is also the most dependent on the EU out of all Member States.
If The Netherlands were to leave the EU, Rotterdam would be overtaken as the largest port in Europe before long, and goods going to the EU would skip it completely. On top of that, the multinational companies that have headquarters in The Netherlands would obviously all get up and leave (note: Brexit).
I don't think I need to tell you what this would do to The Netherlands economy.
The UK made the mistake of blaming all the things they didn't like on the EU, without actually paying attention to what the EU does and does not do for them.
Don't make that same mistake yourself.
Hate is an ugly word, but I will forgive you because we all hate lag.
I was going to say despise but that felt to strong
You despise the dude who eats icecream like an idiot and then goes around touching things.
You hate the guy who throws icecream at other people (including you) and then kicks a dog.
How does one eat ice cream like an idiot?
Not really talking down to you (definitely not in the same manner I sometimes do with "other posters" on this forum), just pointing out a few things. Sometimes it helps to have things laid out for us, even if it is things that we know, sometimes just having someone lay it out for us can help us see the whole thing at once. That may sometimes come across as rude, but I've got no issue if people think that of me as long as they keep an amount of focus on the discussion at hand.
You've spent enough time on these forums to potentially notice there is a pattern to the topics I post opinions about, and the topics I ask questions about. That pattern is basically areas I do know a good amount about vs areas I don't know much about.
This is generally my thing - I'm happy talking about things I know a good amount about, sharing what I know (arguments only really come in to play when people think their opinions are facts - there is a distinct difference). I am happy asking questions about things I know little about, but I won't post opinions about something that I have no real idea about.
Whether I am from the EU or not is not really a question - the people that know the most about the inner workings of the EU are those that deal with the EU daily, not those inside the EU. Assuming you agree with my above statement that I tend to only talk about things that I know at least a good amount about, you can assume, if you wish, that this applies to this discussion as well.
No worries, I do hope I've helped a little.
Politics is one of those things that I personally encourage everyone to get informed about and involved in. People don't necessarily need to run in an election themselves - or even assist in an election - to make a real difference. In fact, I wouldn't even say that is the most effective thing a person could do.
To me, the most effective thing a person could do is to inform themselves, and be willing to talk about politics openly. A massive number of people hold on to a false fact that they truly believe, and this false fact has an overwhelming effect on their political outlook. If you are able to provide them with correct information (and source that information so they can check it if they wish), then you can alter a persons entire political outlook in just a few minutes worth of conversation.
I make a point of openly talking about politics at work as much as I can, both within the members of my team, and with other team leaders. Some of these people have changed their outlook, but more importantly to me, all of them are now more informed about politics, and feel comfortable taking that slightly better informed position they are in now to encourage political discussions with their friends and family.
It isn't necessarily trying to convince people to vote the same way I would in an election - that would be pointless (based on what I vote based on). To me, it is more important that these people make it known to who ever they elected that that elected official is representing people that are actually paying attention to politics.
I am of the opinion that this makes a real difference. Others may disagree, and they are free to do so, but that is still my opinion on the matter.
China.
Wont take the bait.
It isn't bait.
90 years ago, China was one of the poorest countries in the world.
Now it's... not.
If you want more recent examples, then look to Zambia and Ghana, the two most recent countries that I know of to pull themselves from low income to middle income countries.
They are at the start of the journey that China and India both took decades ago.
This is the thing though, there are always countries that are pulling themselves up, but because it is a process that literally takes decades (or centuries, honestly), it isn't something people notice unless they actually go out and specifically look for it. If you do go and look for it though, you see countries that have done it.
Afaik there are now only around 35 countries that are in the low income bracket, compared to around 65 at the turn of the millennium.
China?
India?
Zambia?
Ghana?
Look at the quality of life of the examples you gave as solid politics.
Those ppl suffer big time.
With it dripping all over his hand and smeared into the lpwer half of his face.
Fact is, they are improving. That is what you asked for.
Ghana and Zambia right now have the quality of life the average person in the west had a just prior to the first World War, maybe a bit better. China and India are far superior to what we had even 50 years ago. All four of these countries are working on improving things, and doing a successful job at it.
As I said though, these things take decades at best, so I'm not sure what more you want other than examples of countries that are working on it - much as the west is still working on it (well, other than the US, which for some reason think are at the pinnacle already).
If you want an example of countries that found some political magic potion that instantly turned their country from a low income, poverty stricken hopeless mess into a high income country, then that is obviously not realistic.
On the other hand, if you are looking for examples of countries that are in the process of working towards improving their situation from low income up to as high as they can manage, then I have given you four already.
If you want an example of a country that has moved itself up to the high income bracket recently, then I believe Panama is the most recent (2018 iirc).
If you want examples of countries that have already completed this process, well, other than the US who are misguided on this notion (at least at the Presidential level), it doesn't exist, as every country is still working on trying to improve it's conditions.
Even places like North Korea are trying to improve things. They aren't doing it in a way that is agreeable to the majority in the west, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying to improve things in their own way.