EU proposing new AV rules: More European streaming content, stricter Anti-Hate rules

[Trixanity]

32 minutes ago, Centurius said:

That simply doesn't correspond with reality, when you look at the actual list of directives and other measures passed and implemented by the EU (not just the ones the media likes to rage about) there is a much more significant pattern of measures being passed that are inherently pro-consumer and pro-small member states.

Yes, we have to pray for the benevolence of our overlords. That's true. 

 

And sometimes they do good things. If all they did was horrible things, things will go south real quick.

But all the proposals like this one is the EU once again overstepping.

The strong anti-EU sentiment doesn't come out of nowhere. It's a broken institution with too much power internally while being impotent externally. Its current form should be discarded but it won't.

[cj09beira]

39 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

i get paid in euros, then i convert them to kwanzas. It's not like gov can also block bank transactions between my italian account and angolan one

happy, for you.

have heard horror histories about people not been able to get euros / dollars from kwanzas.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, cj09beira said:

happy, for you.

have heard horror histories about people not been able to get euros / dollars from kwanzas.

going from kw to usd that's a problem, the other way around is easy.  Sad really, i remember when i was there i could just pay everything with dollars and i left in 2010-2011, was there since 2002. How times have changed.

[cj09beira]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

going from kw to usd that's a problem, the other way around is easy.  Sad really, i remember when i was there i could just pay everything with dollars and i left in 2010-2011, was there since 2002. How times have changed.

i lived in Mozambique until 2 years ago and its getting worse every year as they managed to destroy a growing country.

Eu found out that there was a lot of money missing so they stopped giving them money ( 50% of Mozambique's government budget); and if that wasn't enough they managed to start a war against the 2 biggest Party (both have guns), now many investments stopped so  inflation wen't through the roof ( around 200% in 2 years) and dollars/euros are getting harder to find. Sad times indeed.

[Monkey Dust]

6 hours ago, cj09beira said:

Isnt italy on the eurozone? If it is you are stuck as the cost of making a new currency would make it unfeasible 

I wouldn't say unfeasible. I'd guess there is a well developed, if not completed, plan for Greece to exit the Euro and reintroduce the Drachma. Given the detrimental effect of having a currency too strong for your economy, it could be a very worthwhile investment for the likes of Italy.

[suicidalfranco]

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

i lived in Mozambique until 2 years ago and its getting worse every year as they managed to destroy a growing country.

Eu found out that there was a lot of money missing so they stopped giving them money ( 50% of Mozambique's government budget); and if that wasn't enough they managed to start a war against the 2 biggest Party (both have guns), now many investments stopped so  inflation wen't through the roof ( around 200% in 2 years) and dollars/euros are getting harder to find. Sad times indeed.

I really hope Angola recovers, it has so much potential and i saw it go from a country ravaged by a civil war to what i consider Africa's most beautiful pearl.

 

[Prysin]

22 hours ago, WereCat said:

I really hate these new rules... wait, am I allowed to do that?

well, if the US hate-laws are anything to go by, it will only practically apply to whites

[asim1999]

Macron said he wanted to 'reform' the EU, but when Angela Merkel agreed with his unnanounced 'reforms' i had a feeling that it was going to look like this. 

Political and economic integration has failed, and now they are trying to destroy Euroscepticism

 

Was a remainer before the brexit referendum, but now i support brexit 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Its uite simple. If any speech is banned, then you no longer have free speech.

That is a technical absolute yes. It is all or nothing rational though.  We don't have 100% free speech. Some speech is actually  already banned, Fraud and false advertising are laws that prevent you from free speech.  You can apply technical absolutes to many other laws, like seat belts and helmets, They deny civil liberties.  If your argument is that we shouldn't have laws based on the absolute technicalities then we would all be living in anarchy.   

 

Ergo: once we have consumer laws we no longer have freedom to carry out business, once we have Tax laws we no longer have financial freedom.  You and I know this isn't true, but if you want to apply all or nothing reasoning to these laws then it is. 

[JuNex03]

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 6:59 AM, Centurius said:

For the Commission to pass a new directive more than 55% of the member states need to agree. The larger member states make up significantly less than 55% so small states having no influence is blatantly false.

However, as the bigger country it has the power to control smaller ones without the need of diplomatic agreements. Let's put it this way, in a group of 10 members, 8 are friends, you can be well sure that the decisions that benefit them would be passed more than the ones benefiting the other 3. Or they can even control them economically through sanctions, like fining member states for not taking in refugees, this way they'll be forced to agree.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/805809/European-Union-migrant-crisis-refugee-Greece-Italy-fine-sanctions

[Centurius]

12 minutes ago, JuNex03 said:

However, as the bigger country it has the power to control smaller ones without the need of diplomatic agreements. Let's put it this way, in a group of 10 members, 8 are friends, you can be well sure that the decisions that benefit them would be passed more than the ones benefiting the other 3. Or they can even control them economically through sanctions, like fining member states for not taking in refugees, this way they'll be forced to agree.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/805809/European-Union-migrant-crisis-refugee-Greece-Italy-fine-sanctions

Quid pro quo is part of decision making, more at 11.

 

I also do love that example you quoted as it outlines just my point. The refugee crisis has disproportionately affected the border (and in most cases smaller) European states whereas the stronger member states have been trying to avoid their responsibilities mostly. The weaker states managed to get the division of refugees throughout the EU passed and that way leveraged the decision making process to address their immediate problem. As for fines, it's less of a fine when your country already receives several billions in subsidies and the threat boils down to sending less money if you do not agree with a measure passed by nearly the entire European Union, including most smaller states.

[JuNex03]

7 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Quid pro quo is part of decision making, more at 11.

 

I also do love that example you quoted as it outlines just my point. The refugee crisis has disproportionately affected the border (and in most cases smaller) European states whereas the stronger member states have been trying to avoid their responsibilities mostly. The weaker states managed to get the division of refugees throughout the EU passed and that way leveraged the decision making process to address their immediate problem. As for fines, it's less of a fine when your country already receives several billions in subsidies and the threat boils down to sending less money if you do not agree with a measure passed by nearly the entire European Union, including most smaller states.

That's the problem though, the larger faction within a group has the potential to swing the votes to their side. Sometimes there are more benefits to going solo than in a group as you are threatened to lose those several billions if you disagree. The longer you stay in the group and use the benefits you receive being in said group, the more chance those benefits start becoming bribes/bargaining chips once you start disagreeing. Look at how EU wants to make it hard for Britain to Brexit.

[Centurius]

Just now, JuNex03 said:

That's the problem though, the larger faction within a group has the potential to swing the votes to their side. Sometimes there are more benefits to going solo than in a group as you are threatened to lose those several billions if you disagree. The longer you stay in the group and use the benefits you receive being in said group, the more chance those benefits start becoming bribes/bargaining chips once you start disagreeing. Look at how EU wants to make it hard for Britain to Brexit.

Stuff simply doesn't come free, that's how the world works. As for the Brexit talks, the funny thing there is that the most painful form of Brexit would be the EU outright saying that they are no longer members of the bloc and will receive 0 of the benefits. What the Brits are trying to achieve is keeping the benefits of EU membership without dealing with any of the downsides. Just like you can't have your cake and eat it too, a country can't either. 

[Thunderpup]

Being an American i can appreciate the quandary people are having over this.

 

Here in the states Free speech is codified into our constitution and as a result even "hate" speech is protected; which is why the klan and other groups are able to spread the word.  It should be noted that there is a difference between hate speech and inciting violence with the latter actually being against the law. 

The reason we permit this is because, as you can see, that hate speech is very sticky to actually define and a government can abuse their ability to curb hate speech as a way of cracking down on free speech.  

 

But it does suck in a way because hate speech is highly cancerous.

 

On 5/24/2017 at 6:59 PM, Centurius said:

For the Commission to pass a new directive more than 55% of the member states need to agree. The larger member states make up significantly less than 55% so small states having no influence is blatantly false.

Question, 

How exactly is representation in the EU parliament handled? Does each member get the same about of representatives, or is it based on population of each member state?

 

[Mihle]

24 minutes ago, Thunderpup said:

Question, 

How exactly is representation in the EU parliament handled? Does each member get the same about of representatives, or is it based on population of each member state?

Its based on how many people that live in the country, but its not proportional.
While Germany has ~10x the amount of people than Austria, they have like ~5x the amount of representatives.
Germany have ~40x the amout of people that Slovenia, but they have ~12x the amount of representatives.

[Thunderpup]

25 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Its based on how many people that live in the country, but its not proportional.
While Germany has ~10x the amount of people than Austria, they have like ~5x the amount of representatives.
Germany have ~40x the amout of people that Slovenia, but they have ~12x the amount of representatives.

Is there a fixed number of parliament seats? Meaning is there a maximum amount of seats in the entire parliament.

[Centurius]

1 hour ago, Thunderpup said:

Is there a fixed number of parliament seats? Meaning is there a maximum amount of seats in the entire parliament.

Yeah, the amount is capped at 751. The official label for how seats are divided among member states is degressive proportionality.

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, Thunderpup said:

Is there a fixed number of parliament seats? Meaning is there a maximum amount of seats in the entire parliament.

 

10 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Yeah, the amount is capped at 751. The official label for how seats are divided among member states is degressive proportionality.

Well, it is 751 since 2014, before that it was different from time to time

[Thunderpup]

9 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Yeah, the amount is capped at 751. The official label for how seats are divided among member states is degressive proportionality.

ok so it's very much like the House of representatives here in the U.S.  States are allotted representation based on their population, but there is a capped number of seats available so it isn't proportional.

 

It allows for bigger population states to be bullies, but not as bad as it would normally be. 

[Centurius]

1 minute ago, Thunderpup said:

ok so it's very much like the House of representatives here in the U.S.  States are allotted representation based on their population, but there is a capped number of seats available so it isn't proportional.

 

It allows for bigger population states to be bullies, but not as bad as it would normally be. 

Yeah, exactly.

[Thunderpup]

Just now, Centurius said:

Yeah, exactly.

Is the head of the EU, whatever the title is called, chosen by election from the people or just chosen by the members of parliament?

[Centurius]

Just now, Thunderpup said:

Is the head of the EU, whatever the title is called, chosen by election from the people or just chosen by the members of parliament?

Well, there isn't a formal head of the EU. The closest thing is the President of the European Commission, they are nominated by the European Council(the heads of state or government of all 28 EU member states) and then confirmed by the European Parliament. Just like the Prime Minister tends to be in most countries. There have been calls for a directly elected President but most member states fear that someone who can truly claim a mandate from the 500 million EU citizens is too powerful and that it reduces the power of nation states.

[PlayStation 2]

On 5/25/2017 at 9:41 AM, Spenser1337 said:

first it's Alex jones, then its fox, then its any deviating opinion

 

this is the beginning

I find the fight against Fox News hilarious in many ways. Primarily because outside of what it speaks about American politics, they aren't far off from CNN or MSNBC in international politics. 

[Thunderpup]

5 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Well, there isn't a formal head of the EU. The closest thing is the President of the European Commission, they are nominated by the European Council(the heads of state or government of all 28 EU member states) and then confirmed by the European Parliament. Just like the Prime Minister tends to be in most countries. 

That makes sense, and i wasn't aware there was a separate body apart from parliament, but i'm not surprised either.

5 minutes ago, Centurius said:

 but most member states fear that someone who can truly claim a mandate from the 500 million EU citizens is too powerful and that it reduces the power of nation states.

this is the sort of dilemma the founders of the U.S. had to deal with when framing our current constitution.  It's why states have a lot more authority over how they are run than most provinces in other countries; and can openly defy the Federal government on some matters. 

[Thunderpup]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I find the fight against Fox News hilarious in many ways. Primarily because outside of what it speaks about American politics, they aren't far off from CNN or MSNBC in international politics. 

As far as american news outlets go Fox is pretty much par for the course and on an even keel with MSNBC in terms of accuracy and bias.

 

Fox gets the hate that it does because it is a one stop shop for conservatives looking to get news tailored for their way of political bias.  In contrast there are a number of different outlets for liberals to get their news that is tailored toward their political biases.  So it is more diffuse and as a result not as easy to hate on.

 

CNN used to be the happy middle ground that in addition to having a higher accuracy rating (around 50% compared to the low 30s of fox/msnbc), but was pretty even when it came to partisan issues.  Sadly that isn't the case anymore.