If you are so much rooted in reality, then I guess you know the level of bad debt Iceland banks had accumulated, before the government took measures that would have been forbidden by EU treaties.
Sure current Iceland current situation is far from being perfect, but it is much better than Greece that followed all the rules (but it changes now).
I know that very well. But being outside still has less rules than being inside, especially on economic rules like debt. And I am not sure to have any real influence gain by being inside (referendum are ignored...).
Could Iceland have saved its ass from 2008 crisis if it had been inside the eurozone? I am convinced membership would have been a liability more than an asset.
But let us see if the Greek government can prove me wrong.
And I debunked that particular side argument readily with facts by listing things in which Parliament factually gained powers. Which means that your admission remains the admission of increase of democratization.
Thank you for explaining my own words to me, you seem to know what I think better than I do.
Indeed I agreed the Lisbon treaty moved more subjects to the codecision procedure. But the MEP I vote for still cannot initiate change in EU policies. Even if the EU parliament could convince the EU commission to do initiate a directive, there are many subjects that are carved into treaties and cannot be changed.
Calling such a system democratic is a joke. In 2005, after the referendum in France and Netherlands, I believed EU could get more democratic. Ten years later, we had the referendum-rejected treaty that has been adopted without a referendum as the Lisbon treaty, and the TSCG that added even more economic rules that are not subject to democratic discussion. I do not believe anymore EU could turn into something I would consider positive. I think my own country would be better quitting EU.
But we just came to an agreement that it did indeed improve on democratic front. You yourself admitted to it!
When did I say that? I said we Submit more subjects to EU parliament, but it remains powerless (it only real power is to reject). Having a veto power through representants is poor democracy.
P.S. Do note that after that study we had an election to European Parliament and while there was a wide Eurosceptic offering in all member states, they got only a small minority in parliament, whereas more mainstream pro-EU movement got an overwhelming majority.
Then basically what you have is a chicken or egg problem. No powers to EU until it's even more democratic. And EU will stay powerful and less democratic as a result with no real motivation to democratize because they will never be democratic enough for naysayers.
We have been transferring a lot of subjects from member states to EU, and it never improved on the democratic front. I had been in favor of EU ten years ago, but now I would say I just learned from the experience: EU construction had just being about removing subjects from the democratic field and I oppose that
I suspect that your point of view is "common" mainly in UK, which is a notable outlier in EU when it comes to this issue.
On first point: I agreed the only power of the parliament was to reject a directive subject to codecision. That is thin.
On the second point, you misunderstand my point of view, which is surprising since it is quite common. I suspect you just do not want to understand alternative point of view on EU, but I will retry anyway.
I support democracy. Each treaty moves subjects from member state to EU, but there is still less democracy in EU institutions than in member states. At least member state MP can propose laws, something MEP still cannot do.. In my opinion, all moves we did to build EU have been regression of democracy.
In a nutshell, I refuse giving more powers to EU before it get democratic.
we disagree on the interpretation of amount of power that MEPs have
You disagree with the fact that EU parliament cannot propose a directive? That it cannot push an amendment the EU council does not want?
[Lisbon treaty] is far from perfect, but it is objectively BETTER than what we had before.
How? In my opinion each treaty have been moving more powers from member states to the EU, and EU lack of democracy is never addressed. In my opinion the whole process is about removing subjects from the democratic field.
The EU constitution indeed moved more matters to the codecision procedure, where the EU parliament is involved, I agree with that.
But the power of the parliament within the codecision procedure remained unchanged, as it was before and as it is now: the EU parliament cannot propose a directive (only the unelected EU commission can), and the EU parliament cannot trump the EU council on some amendment. Its only real power is to block a directive.
The EU constitution did not propose to change that, and the Lisbon treaty did not change it as well. The EU is an a-democratic framework where your elected MEP have very little power.
They have a double digit sales tax rate and the biggest deficit out of every state
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is also by far the wealthiest out of every state: the deficit is not a serious problem. Look at how EU screws itself with its obsession on member state deficits, this is not a path to follow
Do you know the differences between the EU constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty? They almost bring the same changes, written differently. The EU constitutional treaty replaced all previously exiting treaties (Rome and Maastricht, modified by Nice, Amsterdam and the Unique Act), while the Lisbon treaty is a huge set of amendments on previous treaties.
There are subtle but important differences on the result, thought. The EU Constitutional treaty validated the EU Court of Justice decision that EU treaties trumped member state constitutions (which is not obvious since EU treaties exist based on member state constitutions). That highly controversial part was removed from Lisbon treaty, which led to the bizarre situation where EU treaties trump some member state constitutions, but not all of them: Germany's constitutional court had a decision rejecting EU treaties supremacy.
Factually incorrect. Treaty was changed. The only ones I ever heard claiming otherwise are the rabid anti-EU parties well known to simply ignore facts when they don't suit their populist needs.
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who was the lead writer of the EU constitutional treaty, told us Lisbon treaty was equivalent. You can trust him, he is not an anti-EU populist.
Except that the People of France and Netherlands did not change their mind. The treaty that they rejected by referendum was finally adopted as the Lisbon treaty without new referendum.
The People voted badly, proceed without asking them again. Is it democracy in your opinion?
VPN services that wish to operate within China are required to register with Ministry of Industry and Information Technology for permission
Would it make sense for corporate VPN to register? I mean the situation where the VPN service is only accessible for non Chineese employees visiting mainland for business purpose.
EU is liberal, but no democratic. Do you remember the Lisbon treaty was adopted as a rewrite of the EU constitutional treaty, which was rejected by referendum in France and Netherlands?
EU has no problem violating its own fundamentals. It praises democracy, bit ignored the results of referendums on EU constitution held in France and Netherlands in 2005: The constitution treaty was re-engineered as Lisbon treaty, which is almost equivalent according to lead writer Giscard d'Estaing.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA does not say anything about the interesting part, the sensor: how does it works, and how many time can it be reused?
If you are so much rooted in reality, then I guess you know the level of bad debt Iceland banks had accumulated, before the government took measures that would have been forbidden by EU treaties.
Sure current Iceland current situation is far from being perfect, but it is much better than Greece that followed all the rules (but it changes now).
I know that very well. But being outside still has less rules than being inside, especially on economic rules like debt. And I am not sure to have any real influence gain by being inside (referendum are ignored...).
Could Iceland have saved its ass from 2008 crisis if it had been inside the eurozone? I am convinced membership would have been a liability more than an asset.
But let us see if the Greek government can prove me wrong.
But everything is sent on the wire, right? There is no radio involved here?
And I debunked that particular side argument readily with facts by listing things in which Parliament factually gained powers. Which means that your admission remains the admission of increase of democratization.
Thank you for explaining my own words to me, you seem to know what I think better than I do.
Indeed I agreed the Lisbon treaty moved more subjects to the codecision procedure. But the MEP I vote for still cannot initiate change in EU policies. Even if the EU parliament could convince the EU commission to do initiate a directive, there are many subjects that are carved into treaties and cannot be changed.
Calling such a system democratic is a joke. In 2005, after the referendum in France and Netherlands, I believed EU could get more democratic. Ten years later, we had the referendum-rejected treaty that has been adopted without a referendum as the Lisbon treaty, and the TSCG that added even more economic rules that are not subject to democratic discussion. I do not believe anymore EU could turn into something I would consider positive. I think my own country would be better quitting EU.
TFA says it "uses more radio spectrum". I am confused. Does that means they use some radio network like WiFi or WiMax?
It is weird the domain name was not seized by the FBI when they did the raid on the servers.
First paragraph.
Quoting myself: "I said we Submit more subjects to EU parliament, but it remains powerless "
But we just came to an agreement that it did indeed improve on democratic front. You yourself admitted to it!
When did I say that? I said we Submit more subjects to EU parliament, but it remains powerless (it only real power is to reject). Having a veto power through representants is poor democracy.
P.S. Do note that after that study we had an election to European Parliament and while there was a wide Eurosceptic offering in all member states, they got only a small minority in parliament, whereas more mainstream pro-EU movement got an overwhelming majority.
Because eurosceptics mostly abstain.
Then basically what you have is a chicken or egg problem. No powers to EU until it's even more democratic. And EU will stay powerful and less democratic as a result with no real motivation to democratize because they will never be democratic enough for naysayers.
We have been transferring a lot of subjects from member states to EU, and it never improved on the democratic front. I had been in favor of EU ten years ago, but now I would say I just learned from the experience: EU construction had just being about removing subjects from the democratic field and I oppose that
I suspect that your point of view is "common" mainly in UK, which is a notable outlier in EU when it comes to this issue.
It is not just UK. Like it or not, most EU member state citizen are now opposed to EU, as the Pew institute taught us.
On first point: I agreed the only power of the parliament was to reject a directive subject to codecision. That is thin.
On the second point, you misunderstand my point of view, which is surprising since it is quite common. I suspect you just do not want to understand alternative point of view on EU, but I will retry anyway.
I support democracy. Each treaty moves subjects from member state to EU, but there is still less democracy in EU institutions than in member states. At least member state MP can propose laws, something MEP still cannot do.. In my opinion, all moves we did to build EU have been regression of democracy.
In a nutshell, I refuse giving more powers to EU before it get democratic.
But you know that some people produce things because others are ready to pay to look at it, right? Remove the demand and the offer diminish.
we disagree on the interpretation of amount of power that MEPs have
You disagree with the fact that EU parliament cannot propose a directive? That it cannot push an amendment the EU council does not want?
[Lisbon treaty] is far from perfect, but it is objectively BETTER than what we had before.
How? In my opinion each treaty have been moving more powers from member states to the EU, and EU lack of democracy is never addressed. In my opinion the whole process is about removing subjects from the democratic field.
With WiFi channels being overcrowded, how are they going to achieve reliability?
The EU constitution indeed moved more matters to the codecision procedure, where the EU parliament is involved, I agree with that.
But the power of the parliament within the codecision procedure remained unchanged, as it was before and as it is now: the EU parliament cannot propose a directive (only the unelected EU commission can), and the EU parliament cannot trump the EU council on some amendment. Its only real power is to block a directive.
The EU constitution did not propose to change that, and the Lisbon treaty did not change it as well. The EU is an a-democratic framework where your elected MEP have very little power.
Producing pedopornographic material requires child sexual exploitation. There are more reason for banning that kind of content than just censorship.
They have a double digit sales tax rate and the biggest deficit out of every state
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is also by far the wealthiest out of every state: the deficit is not a serious problem. Look at how EU screws itself with its obsession on member state deficits, this is not a path to follow
Like everyone I think fighting pedopornograhy is a good thing, but what will happen if Anonymous post something wrong about someone?
Do you know the differences between the EU constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty? They almost bring the same changes, written differently. The EU constitutional treaty replaced all previously exiting treaties (Rome and Maastricht, modified by Nice, Amsterdam and the Unique Act), while the Lisbon treaty is a huge set of amendments on previous treaties.
There are subtle but important differences on the result, thought. The EU Constitutional treaty validated the EU Court of Justice decision that EU treaties trumped member state constitutions (which is not obvious since EU treaties exist based on member state constitutions). That highly controversial part was removed from Lisbon treaty, which led to the bizarre situation where EU treaties trump some member state constitutions, but not all of them: Germany's constitutional court had a decision rejecting EU treaties supremacy.
Factually incorrect. Treaty was changed. The only ones I ever heard claiming otherwise are the rabid anti-EU parties well known to simply ignore facts when they don't suit their populist needs.
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who was the lead writer of the EU constitutional treaty, told us Lisbon treaty was equivalent. You can trust him, he is not an anti-EU populist.
Except that the People of France and Netherlands did not change their mind. The treaty that they rejected by referendum was finally adopted as the Lisbon treaty without new referendum.
The People voted badly, proceed without asking them again. Is it democracy in your opinion?
TFA says:
VPN services that wish to operate within China are required to register with Ministry of Industry and Information Technology for permission
Would it make sense for corporate VPN to register? I mean the situation where the VPN service is only accessible for non Chineese employees visiting mainland for business purpose.
And if it makes sense, what is the procedure?
We run liberal democracies here in EU
EU is liberal, but no democratic. Do you remember the Lisbon treaty was adopted as a rewrite of the EU constitutional treaty, which was rejected by referendum in France and Netherlands?
EU has no problem violating its own fundamentals. It praises democracy, bit ignored the results of referendums on EU constitution held in France and Netherlands in 2005: The constitution treaty was re-engineered as Lisbon treaty, which is almost equivalent according to lead writer Giscard d'Estaing.
There is no F******G war going on. 20 people where killed, 17 by terrorists.
Agreed, except these were not terrorists but just murderers. Common people are not terrorized by some inivisble threat that may kill them.
I must concede some journalists are terrorized, That twists press coverage of the situation.